Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL,

"to extend the boundaries of the borough of Blackburn; to authorise the Corporation of the borough to construct new tramways and to run omnibuses within and outside the borough, and to confer upon them further powers with respect to their tramway, water, gas, and electricity undertakings; to consolidate the local rates leviable in the borough; to make better provision for the health, local government, and finance of the borough; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

STOCK CONVERSION AND INVESTMENT TRUST, LIMITED (NORTH WESTERN TRUST), BILL,

"to vary certain provisions of the trust deed relating to the London and North Western Trust of the Stock Conversion and Investment Trust, Limited; and for other purposes," presented, and read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time.

Kilmarnock Gas Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and ordered (under Sections 9 and 16 of The Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered upon Monday next.

Marriages Provisional Order Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Considered in Committee; reported without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1921–22.

CLASS II.

MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES (IRELAND) GRANT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,130,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st clay of March, 1922, for payment of a Grant-in-Aid of Miscellaneous Services to be administered by the Provisional Government.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill): The Committee may remember that two days ago when we were discussing another Supplementary Estimate on the subject of Ireland I indicated my readiness, on behalf of the Government, to make a statement on the general question of compensation for injuries to property as well as for injuries to persons. We, however, found that the Committee felt that it would be more convenient to have a discussion of the personal injuries on the smaller Vote which I presented last Wednesday and to have a separate discussion of a general character on this larger Vote. First of all, whose is this money? It is Irish money. Before the war on the whole the balance as between Great Britain and Ireland was in favour of Ireland, that is to say that Ireland got a larger share of the expenditure of the country than she contributed to the revenue of the United Kingdom. But since the great revolutions in our taxation which have occurred during the war Ireland has become a substantial contributor, on the present basis, to the revenue of the United Kingdom as a whole, and does not receive back in expenditure the full equivalent. Therefore, viewing the problem generally in the light of the present Treaty Agree-
ments entered into between the two countries which are in process of being carried out, I am entitled to say that this is Irish money, although it is Irish money under the control of the House of Commons. Why is this money wanted now for a Supplementary Estimate? During the fighting a great deal of injury was done to persons and damage to property was caused throughout the area of Southern Ireland. This damage was legally chargeable against the Local Authorities. The Local Authorities, being hostile, refused to strike the necessary rates, and the British Government, as a war measure, intercepted the revenues of the said authorities and formed a fund out of which they proceeded to meet a large number of the claims. Almost the whole of the money which they thus intercepted was used in compensation for personal injuries and for the dependants of those who were killed, but a certain proportion has been paid out in respect of damage to property.
That was the position until recently. Then the agreement was arrived at. The Treaty was signed and has been approved by Parliament. The Southern Irish Government came into existence. Southern Irish Ministers came over here, and we have discussed with them at great length in Committee the measures which should be taken to transfer the powers of Government into their hands. These Ministers pointed out among other things that the Local Authorities had been deprived of these revenues on which they counted, and that in consequence the local services dependent on these revenues were being neglected. This, they pointed out, applied particularly to roads. The roads throughout Ireland have fallen into great disrepair. They have been seriously damaged in the fighting. At one time one of the methods employed by the rebels was to blow up, the roads in order to prevent the movement of military motor cars, and there is no doubt whatever that the roads of Ireland are in a very lamentable condition at present. The Local Authorities, only receiving a portion of their revenue, were forced to maintain only essential services, such as the care of lunatics and the various primary services with which they were charged, and everything outside that had necessarily to be neglected. At the same time there is a great deal of unemployment in Ire-
land. Large numbers of persons, in the general misfortunes which have overtaken that country, are unable to find regular employment, and they constitute not only a burden but a positive danger to the new State which is being formed. The Irish Ministers therefore pressed us very strongly to liberate these intercepted revenues in order that they might be at their disposal to help to deal with the economic situation of the country, to allow local government to resume its normal functions, and to meet certain minor contingencies incidental to the erection of the Provisional Government.
The conclusions which we reached were not different, although we proceeded from a separate point of view. We felt that however justifiable the interception of these revenues may have been as a hostile measure in the conflict which has been terminated, the funds of the Local Authorities are not a proper fund from which injury to persons and property should be defrayed in such a case as the late rebellion in Ireland presents. The only tenable view which in the present circumstances can be taken of what has passed in Ireland is that there has been a rebellion, retrospectively viewed as a civil war, terminated by a treaty and amnesty. Taking that view, and proceeding on that hypothesis, it seemed to us clear that compensation for injury should be defrayed by the national Governments involved, and not treated as ordinary cases of malicious damage falling upon the proper responsibilities of the Local Authorities. Article 5 of the Treaty prescribes:
The Irish Free State shall assume liability for the service of the Public Debt of the United Kingdom as existing at the date hereof and towards the payment of war pensions as existing at that date in such proportion as may be fair and equitable, having regard to any just claims on the part of Ireland by way of set off or counterclaim, the amount of such sums being determined in default of agreement by the arbitration of one or more independent persons being citizens of the British Empire.
There is, therefore, to be a prolonged, obligatory, comprehensive, detailed enquiry into the final settlement of the financial accounts between Great Britain and Ireland, into which, on the one hand, our claim that Ireland should bear a portion of the War debt, and their counterclaim, on various accounts, are to enter,
and into which all the minor charges on the one side or the other—payment for goods which they may take over from us, and other charges which must be distributed between the two parties—shall finally be brought. We consider that this is the general account into which the whole settlement of the question of malicious injury to persons and property should ultimately be brought, and it is, of course, only a small part of the general financial settlement between the two countries. In any case we consider that the local revenues which have been intercepted should be liberated in the interests of all parties, and that the Irish Government should be in a position to apply those sums to the general process of restoring the work of the local authorities to its normal condition. I have shown whose money it really is; why is it needed; and why it is that we consider that the final financial settlement between the two countries, rather than the immediate responsibilities of the local authorities, is the proper method of defraying it.
I come now to the question how the compensation claims are to be dealt with, how the total amount is to be decided, and how the proportion is to be divided between the two Governments. We have made an Agreement with the Ministers of the Irish Provisional Government on a general plan. I was speaking two days ago about personal injures. Personal injuries are not the theme of my remarks to-day, having dealt with them on the other Vote, but I may recapitulate what has been agreed to in that respect in order that the House may obtain a complete view of what is intended in regard to both classes of damage. It has been agreed that each Government should look after its own casualties, by which is meant not only its own servants but its supporters. There will, no doubt, be a certain number of borderline cases, which will have to be dealt with, broadly, by agreement. In the main, in nine-tenths of the cases, there will be no difficulty in the responsibility being traced and affixed for each Government to look after its own supporters damaged in life or limb. That is much the most convenient method, because it safeguards the one from absolutely extortionate claims being made against either party by the other, in respect of injuries to life and limb which
are so difficult to assess, and in regard to which you do not have that true method of valuation and assessment which can be brought to bear upon damage to property.
Where damage to persons has been assessed before the existing Courts, that decision will be accepted. Nearly all the cases up to the Truce have been so dealt with. If there are any cases outstanding on either side that have not been dealt with, the responsibility for paying adequate compensation rests with the respective Governments, each looking after its own injured. The method that will be adopted in dealing with any cases which up to the present have not been a subject of judgment before the Courts will be announced later, but it does not amount to a figure which is likely to affect in any substantial way our calculations. I have mentioned the question of personal injuries, not because it is relevant to this Vote, but because I must make it clear that the proposals I am making are part of a comprehensive scheme for dealing both with personal injuries and damage to property.
I come to the question of damage to property. Here we follow a different principle from that which we follow in regard to injuries to persons. I think there are very good reasons which have led us to our conclusions. Where it is a question of injuries to persons, we agree with the Irish Free State Ministers that both sides should look after their own sufferers, but where it is a case of damage to property it has been agreed that the party responsible for causing the damage shall be the party to bear the burden. I do not think there is any inconsistency in applying these methods to the two cases. It is so much easier to define exactly the damage in regard to property than to define what the moral or physical damage may be in regard to life or limb, or to the position of the bereaved widows and dependants.
A Commission will be established—the existing processes of the Court will be barred in both countries—consisting of one member appointed by the British Government and one appointed by the Irish Government, with a Chairman agreed upon by both who holds or has held high judicial office. This Commission will have power to hear and determine all claims in respect of criminal injuries to property, including
losses sustained through the destruction of property by order of the Military Authorities under martial law. They will have power to review awards already given in undefended cases. Where an award has been given in cases of personal injuries we accept it, but where an award has been given in a case of damage to property, where the case has been undefended, that will be subject to review by the Commission, in order to deal with the very extortionate claims which have been made in some cases on purely ex parte evidence.

Major M. WOOD: Some of them have already been paid.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not think so. Only advances have been made in respect of some of these awards.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Take the judgments given by Judge Bodkin in the county court in Clare. Are they regarded as undefended and will they be reviewed by the Commission?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If they are undefended they will be reviewed.

Captain BENN: Were they undefended?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I cannot say on the spur of the moment whether they were undefended or not. If my hon. and gallant Friend puts down a question, I will deal with any particular case. I am giving the general rule, that where cases with regard to property were undefended, they will be subject to review.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman appears to regard my interruption as referring to some casual case of which he would not necessarily have notice. Is he not aware that Judge Bodkin published a Report announcing that he had given awards amounting to £187,000 against the Government, and that in every single case the Government had been invited to send a representative? Will those claims be regarded as defended or undefended claims?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not prepared to make a statement which affects such cases of judicial proceedings. I am prepared to lay down the general principle which must be left to those who have to interpret it. It would be absurd to proceed on any other basis. I might make an incautious reply and find that I had
perhaps let the British Government in for £20,000 or £30,000. The tribunal will have power to review awards which have been already given in undefended cases. This power has been accorded by mutual consent between the two Governments, because it is well known that in some of the cases the awards made on ex parte statements were greatly in excess of the loss which bad actually been sustained, and neither the British nor the Irish Government intend to lend themselves to the artificial inflation of these claims for damages. The Commission will have the power further to appoint agents, investigators, and assessors, and compel the attendance of witnesses, and take evidence on oath. I have now to explain the method by which we are going to deal with compensation for damage to property instead of the present method which this vote is designed to sweep away. I have explained how the total amount of the damage is to be assessed. The question now arises—how is the responsibility to be divided between the two Governments? As I have indicated, we intend that each Government shall be responsible for the damage which its own servants have committed.

Mr. HOGGE: What about the cost of the Commission?

Mr. CHURCHILL: In answer to my hon. Friend, who is displaying the frugality which is said to be characteristic of the northern people, I have no doubt that the actual cost of this investigation will be shared between the two Governments concerned. A much larger question is, how the amount of compensation due to each party should be divided. We think that the investigations of the Commission will in most cases show clearly which party was responsible. In nine cases out of ten we do not think any dispute can arise as to the party which did the work.

Captain BENN: The tenth case is Cork.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have not any definite knowledge of any of these particular cases. I am myself endeavouring to make a good arrangement for the settling up of this matter. We have reached with the Provisional Government complete agreement at every stage. They do not approach the matter in the spirit of frivolous partisanship which, I am
afraid; affects some hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Captain BENN: They were not responsible for the Black and Tans.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There is no advantage in making observations of that kind. They were responsible for some of the most shocking events which occurred, and it is characteristic of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that at this time, when we are doing all we can to clean the slate in preparation for the new era, he should endeavour to make insulting suggestions against his own countrymen, and, in this House, indulge in cheap and extremely ineffective taunts. I think that in nine cases out of ten there will be no dispute. That is the view of the Irish Ministers, and it is our view. In cases in which there is some dispute as to which side did the damage, and which side suffered, there again we have agreed that we will go through the outstanding questions, not as a matter of law, but between Ministers on each side, and so endeavour to round off the account in an expeditious and practical manner. We do not propose to mix up the question of assessment of damages with the assignment of responsibility. The burden will be divided between the two Governments according to the method which I have described, and when the total amount has been determined the balance will be included in the general financial settlement between Great Britain and the Irish Free State.
I would like to point out that the Irish Provisional Government have agreed that the damage done by their partisans or forces shall not be limited to Ireland, but that the damage done in Glasgow and Liverpool shall be brought into account. I think that is an indication of the fair-minded manner in which they approached the consideration of this subject. They argued most strongly that clemency should be extended to their partisans who were sentenced in this country to penal servitude for offences committed in furtherance of their political ends during the period of hostilities. We pointed out that if that were so, it would be logical also that they should equally assume a responsibility for the damage that was done. If amnesty were to extend to both sides of St. George's Channel, then responsibility for damage done equally
followed the same principle. We reached agreement on that.
The fact that there will be this long investigation does not mean at all that the individuals concerned will have to wait for their money until everything has been settled. Power will be given to the Commission to expedite settlements by agreement and to make early payments by agreement wherever possible. We do not want to have this thing going on for years and years with inflated claims going through laborious legal processes and hardships not being redressed; we do not want individuals to be getting no practical compensation but holding out for large sums. We will give the Commission power to make rough-and-ready settlements by agreement, very likely for smaller sums of money, and to wind the business up in the most expeditious manner possible.
The period to which these arrangements relate is from 21st January, 1919, to 11th July, 1921. The first of these dates is the date upon which the general movement began among the local authorities in the South and West of Ireland against meeting malicious injury claims out of the rates; and the 11th July is the date upon which the truce came into operation. It is agreed that injury since the truce should be placed upon the local authorities and dealt with under the ordinary law. That applies to persons as well as to property. Any injuries since the truce are thrown upon the local authorities in the ordinary way. That is the wish both of the Irish Government and of the British Government. The moment the truce is signed the period covered by the rebellion or civil war has come to an end, and anything which is a breach of the truce falls properly on to the responsibility of the local authorities. There is no reason at all why the local authorities should not bear the cost of compensation for injuries in breach of the truce, which was entered into by those who had every right and authority to speak on behalf of the Irish people.
I must mention one other point to complete the picture. I have been speaking entirely about the South of Ireland. Northern Ireland is in a different position. In Southern Ireland, on the basis of the agreement reached, there are two parties, the British Government and the Irish Free State, which were at variance, and
the burden may be shared among them as agreed. But in Northern Ireland there are not two parties; there are only the British Government and a Government with which it was in the closest association throughout this business. On the other hand, there has been damage done largely by the partisans of the Southern Government. We do not propose to argue that the Southern Government should pay for the damage done in the area of the Northern Government. We should never have been able to reach an agreement on those lines. Therefore we have a greater responsibility for the damage done in the area of the Northern Government. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has given an undertaking to Sir James Craig, the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, that he will seek authority from Parliament to pay to the Northern Government in respect of criminal injuries to persons and property in their territory sustained before 14th January, 1922, the date of the undertaking, a contribution of £1,500,000, of which sum half will be paid in 1922–23 and half in 1923–24.

Mr. HOGGE: Was that arrangement made between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Sir James Craig without any reference to this House?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The arrangement made was that he would seek the authority of this House to meet claims of that character.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand that this is for injuries done both to Roman Catholics and to Protestants, and that it is for the Northern Government to decide how much to give to each party?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir; certainly it is to deal with injuries to persons and property that have arisen in Northern Ireland.

Captain DIXON: Is not this Ulster money?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, it is not.

Captain DIXON: It does not come out of our contribution?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No.

The CHAIRMAN: While the statement of the right hon. Gentleman is congruous to the Vote, I do not think it would be allowable to have any discussion upon it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought it necessary to state the facts briefly. The claims put forward in Ulster on both sides far exceed this figure—exceed it by at least three times—but Sir James Craig was of opinion that it would be very much better that a limited and definite sum should be provided and that everything should be scaled down to a reasonable proportion and dealt with promptly. I am sure that that is the best way to treat the subject.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by claims put forward by both sides? Is that the case with the Southern Government?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I mean by partisans of both sides who are dwelling in Ulster. A great deal of mutual damage has been done, terrible damage, and this is an attempt to settle it. I have completed my explanation of the reasons why this Vote should be granted by the House and this sum restored to the Irish Government in order that the local authorities may resume their normal activities, and that some relief may be given to the economic and industrial situation, with which, among their other preoccupations, the newly and steadily established Government of Ireland is now confronted.

Mr. HOGGE: It is usual when a question of this kind is raised to let us know the names of the Commission, or at any rate the name of the Chairman of the Commission before the House passes the Vote. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us that name now?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I am not in a position to do so. I have given a long explanation and the Committee can see the whole scheme. What the Committee is asked to decide is that the money intercepted from the Irish local authorities should now go to the lawful purposes which Parliament originally intended, and that the Irish Ministers shall have it at their disposal. One other arrangement consequential upon that will be made in regard to the assessment of the totals of the compensation claims and their apportionment between the two Governments.

Captain W. BENN: The arrangement explained to the Committee appears to me to be the only fair way of settling the matter. Roughly, it is a proposal that
the rebel government should pay for damage shown to have been done by its supporters and that the British Government should pay for damage shown to have been done by its administration and its servants in Ireland. It is a very reasonable and proper arrangement to make and I have no criticism to offer on it. In one thing I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He seems to regard my interruptions in his speech as captious and anti-patriotic.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not use either phrase.

Captain BENN: I cannot, of course, paint in the fine colours used by the right hon. Gentleman. I know the right hon. Gentleman is a great artist but he does not convince. He causes admiration without conviction. His castigation of me was because he objected on patriotic grounds to my complaint of the conduct of the Black and Tans. I do not think it is unpatriotic to complain of the conduct which has made us liable for this Bill. It is patriotism in the highest sense, to have regard for the fair fame of one's own country. The bill we have to pay is a bill for two years' administration not by the right hon. Gentleman but by the invisible Minister who was lately in charge of the Irish Office. This is the proper occasion to ask for some particulars hitherto denied to the House of Commons as to how this damage was done and by whose orders. I raised one of the best known cases in an interruption addressed to the Colonial Secretary. Judge Bodkin in the County Court of Clare tried some scores of these cases aril awarded the £187,000 which is included in the sum now before the Committee. This is the money we have got to find, because obviously if the damage had not been done this money would not have to be paid. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, to refer to the Bodkin Report but he professed to regard my interruption as a reference to some obscure and hardly known case, which he could not possibly carry in his mind in a Debate of this kind.
Everybody knows, except apparently the Colonial Secretary, that this was one of the most serious pieces of judicial evidence in connection with these matters. There was a great deal of ex parte evidence at that time but this was judicial evidence in the form of a special report,
made by his Honour Judge Bodkin who had been for 14 years County Court Judge in Clare. It was sent to the Government and in it he found that there were 139 cases in which it was proved that criminal injuries were committed by the armed forces of the Government, and in only five cases were any witnesses examined to justify, deny or explain. I ask the Colonial Secretary whether these are to be treated in the category of defended or undefended cases? Perhaps the Chief Secretary for Ireland who is now present will answer that question.

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood): The hon. and gallant Member has appealed to me. In these cases in the County Clare as in all other cases under the Criminal Injuries Act, the Irish Government qua Government had no legal status before these Courts, as the defendant was the local rating authority, and these cases were not defended by the local rating authority—with certain exceptions which I cannot at the moment give the hon. and gallant Member. With few exceptions, however, they were undefended. The claim is against the local rating authority and it is to save those authorities at the request of the Irish Government and by agreement, that we are asking for this money.

Captain BENN: Nothing could be more clear than the explanation of the Chief Secretary. Then what becomes of the statement of the Colonial Secretary that we accept the judgments of the County Courts where those judgments have been made? As the Chief Secretary has explained, the Government had no status in those courts—

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The local authority was the defendant.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman explained that the Government never had any status and that the action was against the local authority. In that case the statement of the Colonial Secretary that where judgment was given they would be accepted really becomes of no importance at all.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me again to intervene may I say that in cases of personal injury the judgments of the Courts are to be accepted as final. In cases of
injury to property, where the cases were defended by the local authority, thus affording a reasonable presumption that the amount ultimately awarded was reasonable, because it was defended and decided on its merits, that award will be paid. Where the cases were undefended by the local authority on which the claims are always made in law under the Criminal Injuries Act—those cases must he subject to the judicial procedure outlined by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary.

Captain BENN: I am much obliged to the Chief Secretary because I think the position is quite clear. Where the local authority defended their claim the Government is going to accept the decision. That really means that the whole Bodkin claims will be allowed because, not only were these cases tried in the County Court before the order was made that such cases should not be taken, but I observe Judge Bodkin says that Mr. Cullinane, Crown Solicitor, had stated in the County Court that he had instructions to attend as representing the military.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Member cannot say that these are defended cases. There are thousands of cases in Ireland and how can he say in every case whether it has been defended according to the standard of defence laid down under the Criminal Injuries Act?

Captain BENN: It is quite clear that there is not as much substance in the statement of the Colonial Secretary as we imagined at the time, because the Chief Secretary is now concerned to show that most of these judgments in the County Court were in cases that will be treated as undefended cases when the question of compensation comes to be considered by the Commission. However, the matter is not very material because there is little doubt as to the justice of the decisions given by Judge Bodkin, and there is little doubt that in three months in the County Clare alone the awards amounted to £187,000. These were made for criminal injuries sustained at the hands of the servants of the Crown. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary is going to plead that this is a supplementary estimate which we ought to pass with pride. So many of these supplementary estimates have been not a cause of apology to him but a subject of pride that
I do not know whether this is also one. Let me pass from the Clare County Court to the case of the creameries. Will the case of the creameries come before the Royal Commission? I take it that will be the course adopted. We know quite well that something like 60 of these creameries were burned and the only evidence available is given on excellent impartial authority. I think Sir Horace Plunkett was a party to the statement. [Interruption.] Well, Sir Horace Plunkett was a member of a former Government and I do not think be can be called a partisan.

Colonel NEWMAN: Oh, oh!

Captain BENN: In any case, he is a man whose word would be accepted by almost everybody in the country. The Agricultural Organisation Society published a full statement a long time ago—at the end of 1920—on these destroyed creameries, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was totally unable to meet the evidence which they brought forward. If it is true that the creameries were burned by spontaneous combustion, then why did not the right hon. Gentleman explain that in the interval of 15 months? On the contrary, he has allowed all these cases to go by default, and in addition to the damning indictment from the County Court in Clare there is the bill for the creameries. I am taking large blocks of cases and not isolated instances of outrage and arson by the right hon. Gentleman's armed agents in Ireland. The second item in this bill is for the creameries, which, of course, as the right hon. Gentleman himself now knows, is one of the most shameful items in the history of this shameful administration.

Colonel Sir J. GREIG: Were they defended or undefended?

Captain BENN: Oh, they were undefended—that is the cream and the milk. Some of the cases were not brought into court, and in some of them judgments were given. The right hon. Gentleman was able to send people to defend the cases if he wished? Does the hon. Member for Renfrew now wish to defend them?

Sir J. GREIG: I simply asked whether these were cases in which the local authorities had defended the actions
brought under the Criminal Injuries Act. It has been pointed out that there were three classes of cases, and that it was laid upon the local authority to defend them. I simply ask for the information as to whether the hon. and gallant Member knew that these creamery cases were defended?

Captain BENN: Some were and some were not. Others did not go into court. I must admire the hon. Member's consistency. He is apparently the last survivor of the Members of this House who defend the burning of the creameries.

Sir J. GREIG: The hon. and gallant Member has made a wholly unjustifiable observation. I simply asked for information in order to clear our minds in regard to the statement that the undefended cases were of course open to revision. I asked a simple question of that kind, and the hon. and gallant Member makes insulting remarks about us on this side whenever we ask for information.

Captain BENN: I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member thinks it insulting to charge him with supporting the policy of the Government. I pass to the largest of the three cases which I mentioned, viz., the burning of Cork. This case is to be investigated by the Commission, and of course we shall have to pay the bill if it be shown that the damage was actually committed by the agents of the Crown. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now who did burn Cork, who was responsible? He can say one of three things. He can say it was burnt by private individuals; he can say it was burnt by the Forces of the Crown.[...] he can say he does not know. Will he say either?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am listening.

Captain BENN: The right hon. Gentleman is in a position of advantage which none of us share. He has received an impartial report by a, military officer of high standing in reference to this matter, and the Cabinet has seen it. He knows the facts and he is asking the House of Commons now to pay a SLUT on account of the burning of Cork, and he will not tell the Committee who was responsible for that gigantic arson. Why not? Are we not entitled before we vote the money to know who burnt Cork? First of all we inquired, because it seemed so incredible—

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: On a point of Order. This is a question which we are told will be submitted to a judicial tribunal, and I submit that it would be ultra vires to discuss it now, and that the hon. and gallant Member opposite cannot expect the Chief Secretary to give an opinion upon a matter of that kind.

The CHAIRMAN: As a matter of Order, I do not think there is anything out of Order. As to whether or not it is suitable, that is another matter.

Captain BENN: We are providing funds they the tribunal, out of which funds they will meet the charges. Is it the case that after fifteen months, during the major portion of which time the Government have been in possession of this incriminating information, they plead that they cannot tell us what they know because the matter is to be subject to judicial inquiry? I think even the right hon. Gentleman himself would not put forward a plea of that kind. The event occurred in December, 1920, and attention was immediately called to it in the House of Commons, which was led to believe that as soon as an impartial inquiry had been held the information would be given to members of the House. The Chief Secretary replied that the House was entitled to all information. That was on 13th December, 1920, and hon. Members who would have been inclined to cross-question the Chief Secretary accepted as perfectly reasonable his request that no further questions should be asked and no further impatient or ex parte statements made until a judicial inquiry had been held. He said:
All I can say is that it is obviously to the interests of the Government to find the perpetrators of this outrage, and I have every confidence in the General Officer Commanding doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th December, 1920; col. 29, Vol. 136.]
12 N.
So have we. On the next day, of course, further questions were put as to this occurrence, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) said:
Will that Report when it is completed be made public?
The Attorney - General for Ireland replied:
I think so. I think that is the usual course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th December, 1920; col. 255, Vol. 136.]
That was about the last that we heard until two days later, ashen further ques-
tions were put to the Chief Secretary and the Leader of the House. The Chief Secretary said:
Though, of course, I cannot control and would not intervene in any judicial inquiry, military or otherwise, I hope it will be possible to give the House the result of this Report before it rises next week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1920; col. 679, Vol. 136.]
"Next week" was Christmas Week of 1920. Why was it that this Report was not made public? It cannot possibly be that, not having seen the Report, the right hon. Gentleman gave a pledge that, whatever the result, it should be published, and that, having seen the Report, there was something in it which made it inadvisable to publish it. Is the explanation that before he read the Report he was prepared to abide by the findings of a high judicial inquiry, and that having read it he found that neither his reputation nor that of the Government could possibly survive its publication? In any case surely the members of the House of Commons, before they vote money to pay for injuries done, have a right to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them the Strickland Report which was judicial, which was promised to the House and which has been withheld unaccountably for eighteen months.

Colonel SHARMAN - CRAWFORD: Speaking as Chairman of a County Council in an agricultural area, as we are about to strike the rates, will an amount on account be paid as soon as possible, so as to relieve that rate?

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. and gallant Member is dealing with a matter not included in the Vote. The Colonial Secretary did mention a corresponding grant which had been made to, Northern Ireland, but there is no money for Northern Ireland in this Vote.

Colonel NEWMAN: It is rather exceptional that to-day, in Committee of Supply, we are actually scrapping an Act of Parliament. We are scrapping the Act of 1920, which is rather a big order for a Committee of Supply. I daresay we have to do it, but curiously enough we are only doing it apparently for a couple of years. After a certain period after the truce the cases that occurred are once again to be dealt with by the old method. The old method in Ireland, in the case of malicious injuries, is, of
course, to claim and to recover the amount from the local rates. I have here a demand note which I have got to pay for 1917. I see that in that year I was paying fairly smartly for criminal injuries—about 2s. 7d. in the £. Under the 1920 Act certain grants and help to Irish ratepayers were stopped. That was something fairly substantial. In this particular demand note I had a total rate levied on my agricultural land of something under 5s. in the £, but, by reason of the agricultural grant paid from this country and given to the relief of the Irish taxpayer, I was relieved to the extent of just on 2s. of my rate. Therefore, under the 1920 Act that was stopped, and I and other taxpayers and ratepayers in Ireland have found their rates go up enormously. At the present moment I am paying on agricultural land in the way of rates the enormous amount of 12s. in the £, which is something quite crushing. This particular Estimate, then, scraps the 1920 Act, and for two years we shall have some quite different method of getting our claims paid for damage to property. We are told by the Secretary of State for the Colonies that the authority responsible is to bear the burden in undefended cases. Of course the Republican Government did not recognise the British courts. The local authorities were forbidden to defend the cases, and therefore more than 90 per cent. of them were undefended. That really was not our fault. Take my case. My house was burnt at the end of June last. I have got here the Order referring to the burning of my house. It says:
Headquarters, Cork,
No. 2 Brigade.
29th June, 1921.
Major NEWMAN,
Newberry Manor.
Owing to the recent destruction of several houses in this brigade area, I do now hereby order your house to be destroyed.
That is signed by the commandant of the particular brigade operating in my area. I at once took the necessary steps in accordance with British law to recover the money which I thought was due to me. My solicitor, of course, employed the best expert he could get on building, and the best valuer on furnishing, and so on, to try to find out what it would cost me to restore my house as it was before the fire. As a matter of fact, I told them I
would be satisfied with a certain sum, and we discovered, after investigation, that the sum I mentioned was too low. We raised it from £20,000 to £25,000, and the judge awarded me, I think, £24,700. That case, of course, was undefended. That was not my fault, but because of that I have to go before another Commission. On the whole, I think what the Government propose is fair. I think it is about the only solution.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the Chief Secretary about the Commission which they propose to set up. It is a Commission to consist of one person nominated by this Government, one by the Provisional Government of the day, and a chairman agreed upon by both sides, and he must be a man who has held high judicial office. But is there only going to be one Commission? Are these three men to reopen the whole of these claims in the South of Ireland? What I suggest is that we shall have to have a number of roving commissions—perhaps four or five, one to sit in Cork, one in Tralee, one in Galway, and one in Tipperary. There are not only the cases of loyalists and Protestants, but cases on the other side as well. There will be hundreds and hundreds of cases, and if all have to go before one court of three men, they will take years to get through. We shall need a number of commissions travelling all over the country sitting in various towns taking these cases. With regard to responsibility, the Colonial Secretary told us—and I think he was right—that in most cases there will be no dispute at all. In my case, for instance, I have an order signed by the officer commanding the brigade operating in my district, so that it is perfectly obvious that it was done by the other side. It is merely a question of whether it was done by a belligerent or not. I take it these people have been recognised as belligerents, and that it was a belligerent who burned my house, I being a British national. In other words, an enemy fighting against the forces of the Crown burnt down my house, I being a British national, because obviously, if I had been fighting, I would have been fighting on the side of the forces of the Crown.
Most cases are like mine. Here and there will be difficulty, but the main thing is that we get paid. It is now admitted that each side is to bear its own damage.
The Commission comes along and, assuming I cannot settle out of Court, I go before the Commission, and state my case, and the Commission award me a certain sum of money, which has got to be obtained from the Provisional Government. Other people go before the Court and are awarded money which must be got from the British Government. What I want to get at is this. Is there any danger of people like myself having to wait many years until some provisional government, or some future government in the Irish Free State, can afford to give them the money? Does it come out of one central fund?
Another question: We have been waiting for the Indemnity Bill. We were told that when that Bill came along the policy of the Government would be explained and, apparently, would be embodied in the Indemnity Bill. Will this agreement arrived at between the Provisional Government and our Government be embodied in the Indemnity Bill and passed into law as part of the Bill? What a great many of us want in the South of Ireland—I do not say myself—is money at once. There are people who have their houses burnt and their land taken by the Republicans, and these unfortunate people want to get away and start life. afresh. They have got openings overseas, and they want to get this money, this three thousand or five thousand, or whatever it may be. They want to take their opportunity, and they are waiting till they get the money to do so. I do trust, therefore, there will be no very great delay in settling these claims. The right hon. Gentleman opposite suggests that in a majority of cases a bargain will be struck, and that in some way or other it will be indicated that if a claimant for £5,000 care to take, say, £3,500, he will be paid the money at once, whereas if he holds out for the full amount of £5,000 he will have to wait his turn and come before the Commission. In a great many cases the people would rather "agree with their enemy quickly while they are in the way with him," and get what they can. But I do want to point out to the Chief Secretary and to the Colonial Secretary the great need for hurrying up and doing something in the great number of cases where the people cannot wait. I have got some of these cases, one a pitiful ease. The same night that my own house was burnt down another charming little place two or three
miles from me was also burnt down. It was occupied by three poor old ladies, the daughters of a Colonel. They had just enough to live upon, perhaps £100 a year each, and their house was burnt down by order of one of these gallant Commandants of Brigades. There was no reason whatever why the house should have been burnt down except for the fact that they were the only Protestants in the village.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Reprisals!

Colonel NEWMAN: Reprisals! Reprisals on three poor old women. Reprisals, and that from an hon. and gallant Member who is connected with the Navy.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I condemn all reprisals, and have condemned them.

Colonel NEWMAN: So you should. Here is a case—

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to intervene. If this is a case of hardship such as he suggests, money can be given in advance of the ultimate award and within a week to these ladies.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Why has it not been given then?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The ease has not come to my notice. If it has come to the knowledge of the office, it has probably been dealt with.

Colonel NEWMAN: Perhaps the Committee has dealt with it by now. It may be, for the facts were given to me a while ago. On the whole, I am inclined to say that the offer of the Government is a fair one to those who have suffered damage. Before I conclude I want to deal with one or two matters raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), who replied to the Colonial Secretary. He made great play about the judgments of Judge Bodkin, but I prefer to leave Judge Bodkin alone. Take the question of creameries. The hon. and gallant Gentleman told the House that here were those ruffianly soldiers, those Auxiliaries, those Black and Tans, going around singling out the creameries for destruction, in order, I presume, to penalise the Irish farmer. But I have a creamery in which hold
practically all the share capital and it is going now, and has been. It has never been burnt down for the simple reason it was never affected. In a great many other instances it was notorious that these creameries were used as arsenals for the storing of arms. These brigades or companies met there. It was their armoury, and for that reason—it may be a right or a wrong reason—these creameries in a great many cases were destroyed.
Perhaps it will interest the Committee to tell them exactly why Patrick Street, Cork, was destroyed. It was the main street, as most Members know, of the capital town of Southern Ireland. It was a large busy thoroughfare. There were great business blocks of houses in it, and large drapery establishments which, naturally, employed a great number of hands. It is not to be supposed that all the hands in these shops were absolutely out of sympathy with Republican movement. It is not to be supposed that those responsible for directing public actions in Cork had no access to these establishments. If my hon. and gallant Friend will go to Cork and make inquiries, he would probably be told exactly what I was told, and by more than one person, who has come to see me from the city. How then did the burning take place? I expect the hon. and gallant Gentleman and other hon. Members have seen the photographs of the place at present. These have been distributed, together with literature, to show the atrocities of the Black and Tans and the misdoings of the present Government. But it will be observed in these photographs that these great blocks of buildings are not standing there as burnt-out ruins. My house was simply gutted from the garret to the basement; but the walls of these places have been blown in. It looks like Ypres. The place seems the result of shell fire, and ordinary burning would not do that. The walls would have been left standing. These walls are blown out and by bombs which have been brought in surreptitiously to these buildings. The idea was, of course, that when the troops brought from the barracks had got into Patrick Street to quell the fire and keep order, the bombs would be rained on their heads from the buildings and the destruction of the force brought about. For that reason fire was set to
the buildings and, naturally, the bombs inside exploded, and, of course, the walls were blown down.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Who started the fire?

Colonel NEWMAN: I should imagine the military, and quite rightly. They were not going to see their fellows and perhaps themselves massacred in the streets by missiles from these high buildings. They were not going to have it, and, to my mind, they very properly set fire to the buildings, with the result that the walls were blown to smithereens. On the whole I accept the suggestion made by the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that the cases of hardship in regard to the destruction of property and life are really being dealt with properly. The machinery proposed sounds fair and just. An enormous number of people are in desperate straits, and I want to know whether it is not possible to meet these cases in a much more generous manner in the matter of payments on account. In the cases of officers in His Majesty's Army who were murdered, and where compensation has been promised, surely it is our duty to do our utmost immediately to see that it is paid in full. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that quite recently the wife of a general officer in the Army has had the bailiffs in her house, and has been threatened with bankruptcy, although there is a sum of £6,000 still due to her. It is a point of honour for us to see that this kind of scandal does not go on. These people have had their lives ruined because they were sent by our Government to defend property, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do everything in his power to meet these cases. We betrayed these people, and it is up to this House to see that our honourable duty is fulfilled, and that these citizens shall not be allowed to starve or drift into the Bankruptcy Court.

Major M. WOOD: I welcome the scheme proposed by the Government for inquiry into these matters, and I am glad to think that at last we may have some means of really thoroughly investigating these matters, and being able to apportion responsibility for many of the outrages that have taken place in Ireland during the last year or so. All I have to say is in
criticism of the details rather than the scheme itself. The Government propose to draw a distinction between injuries of two kinds. They are going to allow this Commission to revise the cases which have already been determined where it is material destruction that has been done, but they are not going to revise the personal injury claims that have been settled. It seems to me that the Government should not lightly come to that decision, because we know perfectly well that many cases of personal injuries have been done by members of the Crown Forces and by others, and it seems to me that we ought to have some means of inquiring into these cases as well as into cases of material damage. Not only that, but in many cases the sums awarded for personal injury have been grossly excessive. If you compare the amount given to relatives who lost fathers or brothers or other relatives in the War with the sums awarded by the Courts in Ireland you will find that they are very different.
The suggestion is that in many cases in Ireland sums far more than ought to have been awarded have been given, and I do think the Government ought to revise these claims just as much as the material claims. I do not see what great distinction there is between material and personal injury claims to warrant the distinction which has been drawn. There is a large sum of money involved. With regard to material damage the Government say they are not going to revise the claims where there has been no defence. I want to know what is considered a defence. Is it a defence if the party merely has somebody there to watch the proceedings? Who is going to decide whether there has been a real defence put up when the claim was heard and the award was made? This is rather an important matter, because, if my information is correct, many of these claims were not considered at the time at all, and many of the claims had been bought up by speculative men in the hope that they would get a larger sum than the amount paid over to the claimants at the time. The right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the claims that have already been paid that, although they were for material damage, the Commission would be prepared to revise them because the money had not yet been paid. He said also that in many cases advances had been made, but in no case where material damage has been
done and an award made has the award been made in full.
What percentage of advances has been made and on what principle has the money been paid? Is it at all likely that the awards, when fixed eventually by the Commission, will be less than the amounts paid, and does the Government expect to be able to recover the difference? I would like to know what means will be given to the Commission to inquire into these matters. Will they have access to all the Government documents required? Dublin Castle has been handed over by the British Government recently—I believe "surrendered" is the word which has been used. I would like to know if all the documents kept at Dublin Castle have been preserved, or have any of them been destroyed? Will this Commission be entitled to have access to any documents which it thinks it may require to enable it to come to a just determination of claims? The Government have over and over again refused to this House the Strickland Report, and I do not suppose that now you will be able to prevail upon them to give it.
I would like to know, will they show the Strickland Report to the Commission when it considers the damage to Cork, and will it be enabled to read that document to help it come to a proper determination of the claims in that very important matter. If I am rightly informed, there are millions at stake with regard to the burning of Cork, and it seems to me that no Commission can properly do its work which is denied access to the Strickland Report. Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question on that point? I ask it because this is one of the most notorious cases known to us on this side of the Committee. He may know other cases where there are equally important and useful documents which may be available. I think we are entitled to an assurance on this subject. When will this Commission start its work? My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) has put forward a case which everyone is ready to admit with regard to the urgency of some of these cases. Will the Commission start right away or will it be held up for some months, until Ireland has come to a decision on the question of its constitution? The last point I wish to make is with regard to the money which is being handed over to the Southern Govern-
ment in respect of certain matters. There is no assurance, I gather, that the money will have to be used for criminal injuries, although it is being voted in respect of such injuries, and when the Irish Government get the money they may apply it to any purpose they like. All they do is to accept responsibility to apply an equal sum of money for criminal injuries, it may be later on, but there is no guarantee that the money which is being given to them now will be ear-marked for this special purpose. When the Commission has determined the claims and made the awards there may be no money left out of which to pay them. That seems to me to be a very serious matter, and I hope we shall get some information from the right hon. Gentleman on the point.

Captain ELLIOT: I only wish to emphasise the importance of the declaration made by the Colonial Secretary this morning that it is now recognised that in Irish affairs there has been a rebellion leading to civil war. It seems to me that that gives a final seal of recognition to the Irish Republican Army as a belligerent force, and it carries with it certain advantages to this country. Some of us were anxious that the position should be recognised. The Government should not shut its eyes to the fact, as it has done so much in the past year and a half to the fact that there was a belligerent organisation which amounted practically to a state of war in arms against the British. We get great advantages if we recognise that fact. In view of what has recently happened in Dublin, there is an idea that the British nation is squeezable, that the present state of affairs will be allowed to go on, and that any sort of Constitution may be drawn up in the full certainty that the British nation, being so sick of the disturbances in past years, will never consent to a re-opening of hostilities. I suggest that the people in Ireland should disabuse their mind of that idea. If we have a clear-cut state of peace or war, if we have a hostile, belligerent power which is bearing arms against the Empire, then some of us who have had great misgivings as 10 the action of the authorities and their way of conducting Irish affairs in the last year and a half, will find ourselves in much fuller agreement with the Government than we have hitherto been. If it is to be war, let us have war—a straightforward war
in which we know there are two sides and in which we shall know who are our opponents. If, on the other hand, it is a case of merely suppressing a gang of murderers, then the rules applicable to war are utterly inapplicable in that case.
The interesting point made by the Colonial Secretary that the Irish provisional Government is accepting responsibility for damages committed on this side of the water in Liverpool, Manchester and other places where outrages occurred, and that clemency is being extended to the people who did these things, is important, because if the Irish is recognised as a belligerent Government it is obvious these men have no right to clemency. They were the spies and emissaries of a belligerent. Government operating in plain clothes behind the lines, and they are no longer entitled to enjoy the privileges of the laws of war. It was one of the tragedies of the last disturbances that the ancient and honourable usages of war were being degraded and polluted by both sides in every way, whereas if we had had a state of belligerency recognised we should have had clear-cut issues, traditions and conventions the growth of many thousands of years, as to what was or was not legitimate warfare and honourable usage, as to what was straightforward fighting, and as to what was merely murder and assassination. If at last the British Government has recognised the Irish Free State as a belligerent State carrying on belligerent operations—suspended for the moment owing to the treaty of amity which we hope will be carried into effect—it will strengthen the position of the British Government should the present negotiations break down, and, with a renewal of hostilities between two definite belligerents, it will be open to each to maintain the honourable usages of war and to carry on the fighting straightforwardly, without giving the privileges of fighting men to those guilty of murder and arson.

Viscount WOLMER: I do not propose to follow the last speaker in his attempt to find a theory that will square his conscience into supporting the various twistings and turnings of the Government in Ireland during the past 18 months. That is hardly the question before the Committee. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member has advanced his stand-
point a single inch by the criterion which he has sought to apply. I think that in the annals of history you will find quite as many precedents and established usages for the treatment of rebels as you will find for the treatment of belligerents. Whether you regard Sinn Fein as organised rebels or as a gang of murderers, I do not think matters in the slightest degree. Personally I am perfectly willing to regard them as organised rebels.
I want to ask the Government one or two questions with regard to a statement which has been made to the Committee this morning. The Colonial Secretary told us that a Commission was to be appointed to inquire into the property claims. These claims run into many hundreds, and it is, surely, impossible for one body of three gentlemen to get through, within a reasonable period, this vast number of claims. Are these unfortunate people going to be kept out of their money for months, until this one Commission has got through all the claims? Will not the Government consider the desirability of appointing several Commissions, or having Sub-committees of this Commission, so that these claims can be dealt with as expeditiously as possible? Then there is another point. Compensation, as I understand, for the damage done by British troops, is to be paid by the British Government, and compensation for damage done by the Sinn Fein troops is to be paid by the Sinn Fein Government. As a representative of the British taxpayer, I do not see why the British taxpayer should pay a single cent. This damage was all done in the attempt to suppress a rebellion, and the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, if he examines the usages in regard to the treatment of rebels, will find that the precedents are all in favour of making them pay for the damage that has been done in their country; and that is the standpoint which I would recommend. I know, however, that that is not the policy of the Government, and I suppose that the British taxpayer, as usual, has to pay for a great many things for which he ought not to have to pay. We have poured money down the sink in Ireland for years and have got nothing but cursings for it, and I suppose we shall get nothing but cursings for this.
The point I should like to emphasise is this. What guarantee have we that, while the owners of property in respect of which compensation is to be paid by the British Government are being compensated, the property owners who have to be compensated by the Provisional Government will be compensated equally quickly? Will the Chief Secretary give an assurance that the compensation shall be simultaneous? That appears to me to be a vitally important point. Is the Government prepared to say to the Provisional Government, "We will not pay a penny of this compensation except and until you are prepared to pay your compensation"? If the Government can give the Committee an assurance that the two compensations shall be made simultaneously, this country will have some guarantee that both parties will be compensated, but if the British Government is going to pay its compensation to the parties who are held to have a claim against it, without insisting that payment shall be made at the same time by the Provisional Government to their claimants. I do not see what guarantee we have that these unfortunate people will not be kept out of their money for a very long time, if not for ever.
Then I want to be quite sure about the position with regard to the damage that has been done since the Truce. As I understand the proposal of the Government, it is that all damage done before the Truce is to be compensated in the manner to which I have just referred, but that damage committed since the commencement of the Truce is going to be dealt with in what the Government call the ordinary way. What is this ordinary way? It means a very long process of going to the Courts—and going now to Sinn Fein Courts—and I cannot see that the unfortunate people who have suffered damage since the Truce have any guarantee that they are going to receive any compensation at all. They have really to come to the Bar of their assailants to ask for compensation. Just imagine the position of a Southern loyalist whose farm has been burnt, whose goods have been sold by auction, coming before a Sinn Fein Court in that neighbourhood, where probably the very men who organised this outrage are sitting in justice upon him. There are not a few of these cases; there are hundreds. Any-
one who has had the courage and candour to investigate what has been going on in Ireland during the last six months must know that in every district in the South and West of Ireland there has been a continued series of outrages which run into hundreds, nay, thousands. Of course the public of this country has heard very little about them. A combination of two or three newspaper proprietors has managed to keep the truth from the vast majority of the inhabitants of this country, but the Governent know the facts, and know that these outrages run into many hundreds.
Therefore, the class of people we are dealing with is a very numerous class indeed, and the Government are not justified in treating these people cavalierly. They have pursued, for reasons which seem to them sufficient, a vacillating and contradictory policy in Ireland. The path of their course has been strewn with the wreckage of the fortunes of individuals. The national calamities which they have brought about it is not within their power to remedy, but there is no reason why the hapless men and women whose careers have been wrecked and whose fortunes have been destroyed because the Government has said black one day and white the next, because no one knew on which side the Government stood, and those who had trusted in the Government's good faith found themselves left in the lurch when the moment of difficulty came—there is no reason why such compensation as money can provide should not be made to these unfortunate people. The House of Commons, which keeps the Government in power and has confidence in this Government, has, in my humble opinion, a moral responsibility-upon it to see that these people are fairly dealt with. The House has endorsed the policy of the Government; it has approved the Government's volte-face; and you are confronted with the spectacle of hundreds of people who have lost all their property during the past few months as a result of the policy of the Government. It is not fair to them to hand them over to the Sinn Feiners alone to get what compensation they can by what the Government call the ordinary course. There is just one further point. By the Act of 1920 those who are entitled to com-
pensation were also entitled to 5 per cent. interest on their money until that compensation was paid. When the Chief Secretary returns I will ask him whether this 5 per cent. will continue to accrue after the period of the truce. The point I Want to put is this: Those men whose claims have been dealt with under the 1920 Act are entitled to 5 per cent. interest on their claims from the date of the award. I want to know if this 5 per cent. interest is going to be paid to them right up to the period of the truce, and is the same principle going to be applied to those who have suffered damage during the truce? As I understand the situation, those people who suffered damage during the truce will not get the 5 per cent. interest on the award.
I should like to support very heartily the plea that was made by an hon. Member who spoke from the benches on this side of the Committee above the gangway a short time ago in regard to personal claims. I do not see why a claim for personal injury should be dealt with on any other basis or on any lower basis than a claim for damage to property. If there has not been sufficient compensation in cases of personal injury I think that those cases should certainly be subject to review. There is one final question which I should like to put to the Chief Secretary. What is the Government going to do supposing the Provisional Government fails? The Government know perfectly well that the issue of their whole experiment in Ireland at this moment is hanging in the balance. They know quite well that it is almost a toss-up as to whether or not the thing comes off, and they themselves have postponed the further discussion of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill until they see the situation a little more clearly. The Committee is now asked to vote a sum of over £1,000,000 which is to be handed to the Provisional Government. Can the Chief Secretary give the Committee an assurance that this money will not be paid over to the Provisional Government until His Majesty's Government is absolutely satisfied that the Provisional Government will carry on? We all know what has happened in Ireland during the last few hours. The elections have been postponed for three months, and nobody knows what is going to happen during that period or after that period. The Government admit that there
is a possibility of this country being faced with a claim for a republican Ireland. I want to ask that they should not part with one single penny of the British taxpayers' money until that risk of uncertainty has been removed. If the Government can give the Committee an assurance on that point, if the Chief Secretary will only say that the matter will be brought to the notice of the Cabinet and that careful consideration will be given to it by them, it would make it a great deal easier for many of us to support this vote.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I do so to call attention to the lack of publication of the Strickland Report. The Noble Lord who has just spoken does not appear quite to realise the position. If he proposes to postpone the claim to this money, the people who have been damaged by the Sinn Feiners will not get their money. Those people have to get their money from the Irish Government, and if this question is postponed they will not get it. If I am wrong on this point I hope the Chief Secretary will clear it up. The note to the Estimate says:
It has now been agreeed to pay this amount to the Provisional Government for Irish services under the condition that it shall be regarded as a payment to account of such sums as may be found due from the British Government to the Irish Free State in connection with the arrangement for settlement between the Governments.

Viscount WOLMER: A payment for Irish services.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is perfectly certain that if we do not pay this money the Provisional Government will refuse to pay compensation for the houses destroyed. Therefore the Noble Lord is really standing between the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) and his compensation, a very interesting situation. The Chief Secretary interrupted the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley with a very important announcement. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned one of the many cases of the destruction of property in Ireland, and the Chief Secretary said that the money for these hard cases would be paid within a week.

1.0 P.M

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Gentleman really ought to be more careful in this serious matter. It is really a most important point. What I said was that in the cases of actual personal hardship I would see to it that advances on account should be made to these unfortunate people.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is quite clear that these will be money advances

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Advances of-money.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Well, then, it is clear that they will not be money, but advances of money! I think that is right and proper. These advances of money will be against the Irish Free State, who will compensate the unfortunate people. There is one case which I should like to bring before the notice of the right hon. Gentleman. I have had a good deal of correspondence about an old lady named Mrs. Fitzgerald, living in Killaloe, Kerry. The right hon. Gentleman's officials know the case well, because I have asked questions about it. This old lady, who is a widow, farmed a small farm in Kerry. Her son served with the British Army in the War. There was an ambush near her house, only a little distance away. In spite of her protests that she knew nothing about it, and took no part in it, and could not have prevented it—this occurred on 12th February, 1921—the officer commanding the troops ordered her house to be burned down, as as official reprisal. There is a case of serious hardship. Is that old lady going to get some advance during the week, or is she a personal friend of the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley, and is that a reason for her not getting it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This case will be dealt with, as will the other cases, entirely on its merits, but to ask me across the Floor of the House to reply to one specific case out of thousands which will be dealt with on their merits is asking a question which nobody could answer.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, but the right hon. Baronet did not hesitate to assure the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley that the three old ladies, the daughters of the deceased Irish clergyman, would get compensation within a week if it was a case of serious
hardship, but he refuses to give it to this widowed mother of a British soldier.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, if the widowed mother of a British soldier is a case in exactly the same category.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon Baronet, who never tells anything but the truth in his official replies, has admitted that the woman's son served in the British Army and that her house was destroyed by order of the officer commanding, but I think she was given an hour to remove her household effects. Why will he not give me the same assurance that he gave to the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot judge the merits, I cannot accept, much as I should like to, the ex parte statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who cannot have any personal knowledge, but I thought the Colonial Secretary made it clear in respect of injuries which are the subject of compensation under the enactment relating to criminal injuries, including losses sustained through the destruction of property by order of the military authorities under martial law, and I presume—I cannot prejudge, but I presume that that is the class of case he refers to. That comes within the agreed statement between the British Government and the Provisional Government, namely, that fair compensation is to be paid in those cases.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I hope the tribunal will show a little more friendly attitude than the right hon. Baronet. It is no good the right hon. Baronet looking annoyed.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not annoyed. It is beyond the power of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to annoy me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The right, hon. Baronet is taking a partisan attitude in the matter that astonishes me. Then we shall have a speech from a Government supporter, not one of the honest Conservative supporters of the Government, but one of their tame national Liberals or something of that sort, talking about forgive and forget. There will not be much forgetfulness or forgiveness in Ireland if you are going to adjudicate these funds in a partisan spirit. Where there is hardship, where
they are supporters or opponents of the Government, if the damage was caused by our people let there be no undue delay and let there be an advance in hard cases. The right hon. Baronet has already refused in the case of the personal injury, in other words the murder of a man called John O'Connor, to do anything, although it is admitted that this man was murdered in brutal circumstances—a very inoffensive, harmless man who never carried arms in his life—by the mistake of some servants of the Crown. In that case he has refused to do anything for the widow and young family of this unfortunate man in a letter dated the 21st from himself. I refer to the case of Mrs. Kate O'Connor and it is a very scandalous thing. He says the local authority has to pay.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is firing off these cases—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: They are very well known.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Did this lady bring her case before the County Court of her county and get an award?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yes, the bereaved lady took her case before the County Court and got an award. I suppose she is a partisan of the other Government and therefore they will pay in that case of personal injury. There is a very hard case which the right hon. Baronet has had before him for many months, and I am very sorry some advance cannot be made in that case. I ask him, in view of the altered circumstances, to look into the case of Mrs. Kate O'Connor again, the last correspondence being 21st November, and see if something cannot be done. This woman is nothing to me. She only wrote to me and I took up her ease as one deserving of humanity and as being very scandalous. I did not bring it up in the House until I had voluminous correspondence with the right hon. Baronet and could get no satisfaction. This proposal is going to operate in a very peculiar way. The policy which has been laid down by the Colonial Secretary is going to work out in a very interesting manner, and I hope this will be observed outside the House. There is going to be a tremendous incentive now to the whole of the people who suffered damage in the rebellion to support the carrying out of the Treaty, and we are going to pour out our money in
the nature of a sort of bribe to these people. Every one who has been damaged, and they are very many in number, will have a vested interest in seeing the Treaty carried out, and we are going to pay. It may therefore be worth voting the money from this point of view. It is certainly cheaper than going on with the fighting. I think that aspect ought not to be lost sight of. This Vote is only the very beginning of the business and I am afraid we are establishing a principle. We are going to be let in for millions of money for the damage committed by our forces. Such a well-informed Member as the hon. and gallant member for Finchley has told us it is common knowledge in Ireland that the Crown forces burnt the street in Cork.

Colonel NEWMAN: I did not say common knowledge in Ireland. I said common knowledge in the streets of Cork.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: We are not going to have the Strickland Report unless the right hon. Baronet relents, in which case I will not press my reduction and I daresay the case will go against us by default. But if we are going to make good the loss of property damaged or destroyed by our forces, we are really going to be let in for millions of money. We need not think we are going to get out of it with this small Vote. This is only a beginning. It is only for Irish local services—repair of roads, keeping drains in order and so on, and the next Government, which I hope will shortly replace this one, will inherit a very voluminous cloak of debts to pay and economy will be very difficult if we have to make good the whole of this damage. It is colossal. I have shown some photographic slides in the right hon. Baronet's constituency and I hope I finally decided the electors not to return him again. The damage in some of the Irish towns is colossal. It has got to be seen to be believed. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland will bear me out—destruction of buildings wholesale, whole streets of buildings. I do not know what it will cost to make the damage good. It will literally run into millions. When we are asked to forgive and forget I agree that we do not want to begin raking up in the muck of the awful things done on both sides, but it ought to be made perfectly clear to the British taxpayer what the Government policy is going to cost in order that he may take the earliest
opportunity of getting rid of such an incompetent lot of poltroons. I only use the language of the Lord Chancellor, and I am sure you; Sir, will not call me to order. I am going to make a prophecy. It will not be very long before people like the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley and other owners of large country houses in Ireland press for payment. The Provisional Government will then have a case to come to the British Government for a loan. We are going to advance to the German Government a loan to make good the damage in Northern France. That precedent will be followed in the case of Ireland. Not only are we going to pay in hard cash, and pay quickly, for the damage done by our forces in Ireland, but we shall presently have to advance money to the Provisional Government to compensate people like the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who, I admit, ought to be compensated. I know he was here in England and was not at all responsible for what was going on in Ireland. It is a hard case, and he ought to be compensated as quickly as possible, and there are many cases of this sort. That is what is going to happen and the British people ought not to be allowed to forget this. Before we entered into this arrangement with the Irish Provisional Government, was any estimate made of the total amount involved? Is there any approximate idea of what is owing to Balbriggan, Cork, Mallow, Limerick, Tipperary, and the other places where damage has been done? Is there any idea in the mind of the Government, or have the Government once more presented a signed blank cheque which we shall have to honour? In the meantime, every hon. Member, whatever his party, ought to agree in demanding the publication of the Strickland Report on the burning of Cork. If we have to pay this money we ought to see the evidence, whether it is damaging to us or not. Statements have been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley that the Crown forces have done the damage, and that makes it imperative that the truth should be known. A very large sum of money is involved, far and above the little Vote of one million which we asked for to-day. It will be a very heavy burden on the British taxpayer, and at least we should have the truth, and nothing but the truth.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I want to put a question to the Chief Secretary which seems to me to strike at the root of this question, and to involve a matter of many millions. The sum that will be paid by the British Government for damages inflicted, or alleged to have been inflicted by the forces of the Crown, will be paid in pounds sterling. In what currency will the sums be paid that are to be paid to the loyalists of Ireland by the Irish Government? We had a prophecy by a prominent member of the Ministry a few weeks ago that the new Free State Government in Ireland will be a very optimistic Government, and that economy will not be its strongest point. That prophecy translated into fact means that the Irish paper pound will be issued in enormous quantities by the new Irish Government, whatever it may call itself, and there is no doubt that within a short time the Irish pound will come down in value. In the old days, before the Union, the Irish pound was always at a point of considerable depreciation compared with the English pound. Great as that depreciation was, it seems to me that, without the slightest doubt, a new and optimistic Government, issuing money for its schemes for making a new world across St. George's Channel, will issue paper money in enormous quantities, and we may have to look forward to a time when the Irish pound will be worth perhaps as much as a German mark, or perhaps as little as a Polish mark or an Austrian mark.
Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to guarantee that all the damages paid to the loyalists in Ireland by the Irish Government will he paid in £ sterling, in the currency of the British Empire, and not in some trashy harp-decorated stuff that will he circulated under the mandate of I know not what Government some few months or some few years hence? It is absolutely necessary that we should get a guarantee of equality in these payments, and that, whereas the good English pound is going to be paid in respect of the damage, or the alleged damage, done by the forces of the Crown, every penny of damage done by the forces of murder, anarchy and rebellion should be paid in the same sort of currency. I wish the right hon. Gentleman to give a guarantee that the loyalists in Ireland will be compensated with the same money with which the disloyalists will be compensated,
namely, with the British pound sterling. This question affects all the financial business that will be transacted between the two Governments for the next year or two, and we want a declaration that we shall not give a representative of gold and get back the representative of trash.

Mr. MOSLEY: My hon. Friend who has just spoken has raised a very interesting point which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer. The foreboding of the historical mind which surveys the condition of Ireland at the time of Grattan's Parliament and applies that lesson to the prospects of the immediate future may well be justified. In that event it is a very pertinent question that has been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman and I trust that he will be able to answer it. There is one point which requires emphasis in this Debate, without traversing in any way the discussion which will be more appropriate probably on the Indemnity Bill, which will shortly be introduced. That point is the consideration that has been advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and other speakers. It is well that the English public should thoroughly understand the nature and the extent of the bill which is being presented to them as the result of the failure of the Government's policy in Ireland. It has been already stated that this Supplementary Estimate is merely the first instalment of a very heavy demand that will fall upon us in the future, and I think it is incumbent upon the right hon. Gentleman to afford us some idea of the ultimate extent of the obligation which devolves upon us.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies was very indignant, when be presented the bill to this House, at the events which resulted in the presentation of that bill being called into question. The right hon. Gentleman rather reminded me of the prodigal son who has run through a large fortune and comes to his father with a request that he should pay a heavy bill, and when a parental remonstrance is advanced, the young man turns round and says that any such remonstrance is purely captious, and, in the national case, unpatriotic. The right hon. Gentleman really cannot expect to be able to present a bill to this House of this extraordinary magnitude
without being questioned and criticised in regard to the policy and the mistakes which have resulted in this extraordinary condition of affairs. It is true that any criticism of Irish affairs is rendered difficult by the delicate state of the present position in Ireland, and those who sit on these benches are the very last people in the world to put that position into graver jeopardy than already exists,
It is to the advantage of the present Government that, by a super blunder in every walk of life and every establishment of national affairs, they manage to create by their mistakes so serious a position, so grave a crisis in national and international affairs, that all criticism, all opposition is disarmed and is liable, if persisted in, to result in injury to the national cause. It is always our difficulty in criticising the present Government that the position conjured up by their mistakes is so serious and so grave that criticisms may result in injury to the national cause. Far be it from us to put any advantage of partisanship before the common weal. I, for one, am not by any means willing to linger on one of the blackest pages in the history of England, but it will be our duty, as I feel, on a subsequent occasion more appropriate than the present—on the Indemnity Bill—to point out to the people, of this country the extent of this scandal, prior to an appeal to that wider tribunal—and I feel that it would be action which patriotism demands to emphasise the fact, if possible—that a great section if not a majority of the people in this country—and I believe, when appealed to, it will prove to be the majority—repudiate and detest that policy of the Government which has resulted in so dismal and disgraceful a failure, the bill for which we are now passing by this Supplementary Estimate.
The Colonial Secretary dealt with one question the other night, and left it in rather an anomalous position. He referred to it again in his statement to-day. He proposes that, as to personal injuries, each side should bear the responsibility for its own casualties, while border line cases will be decided by agreement. It is quite clear that Sinn Fein should bear the casualties which they suffered in the field, and that we bear the losses for life and personnel to our own side. But I am not at all clear as to what the right
hon. Gentleman means by border line cases. They have been described on previous occasions as the law-abiding population. We are responsible for the law-abiding population. Surely there is included within that category every man against whom guilt in any outrage has not been proved. Surely every member of the resident population in Ireland who has not been proved to be implicated in outrage falls into this law-abiding category for which we as a Government, become responsible. Is it not a fact that the only responsibility of Sinn Fein in this respect is in regard to its actual supporters in the field, the men who suffered casualties in the various affrays that took place in Ireland during this period? Is it not a fact that all the other damage to life and limb, whether to our own forces or people, against whom no proof of guilt can be advanced is a responsibility borne by our own Government? That is a point which still remains to be cleared up.
In regard to the damage done by our own forces, it is entirely clear that we pay. After all the controversy and all the evasions on this question, at last the truth is out. We must pay for all the damage we did in Ireland, and I am sorry to think that the people of that country will have no great difficulty in making out a substantial bill before this judicial tribunal which is to be set up. It was constantly urged from these benches that this country would have to pay for all the damage which a mistaken policy was inflicting in Ireland. That contention was strenuously resisted from the opposite benches. At last the truth has emerged in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman this morning. England, after all, will have to pay for all damage committed in Ireland—a bill that will run into millions of pounds—in pursuance of a policy which throughout had very little prospect of success. A question has been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman in this connection, which I hope he will answer. I doubt if he will be able to inform us exactly as to the estimated extent of this liability, but he should be able to give us some idea in round figures of the responsibility with which this country is confronted. That the bill will he a large one we are bound to expect. Everybody knows the extent of the damage in Ireland, and the probable extent of the damage which can be laid
at our door. It is the bill for this folly, and for something worse, the bill for a policy which has been consistently opposed from these benches, and which was pursued by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Government until it proved a failure, which now comes to this Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman has the effrontery to claim that the items of this bill, the events which made it necessary, shall not be criticised here because such action will be unpatriotic.

Sir F. BANBURY: I think that there is a great deal in the statement made by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman). We ought to know whether or not the sums which, it is said, are going to be paid by the Irish Free State, are to be paid in depreciated paper or in gold. The speech of the Colonial Secretary, which I am sorry to say I did not hear, but particulars of which I have taken some pains to ascertain, opens up a very serious situation. As I understand, what is going to take place is this. According to a foot-note in the Estimates, we have deducted from certain local services certain sums of money with which to pay those unfortunate people whose property was destroyed by murderers and robbers—because that is what they were It is all nonsense talking about war. There was no war. There were a certain number of thieves, and a certain number of murderers, and those people attacked loyal subjects of the Crown, and did them personal damage and destroyed their property. They could not be brought to justice because, as the right hon. Gentleman told us over and over again, there was such a state of intimidation that no one would come forward as a witness. The only way in which these people could be punished, both those who had not the courage to come forward as witnesses and the people who had committed the murders and robberies, who after all were a very large proportion of the population in the locality, was by a rate being levied upon the district which they would have to pay in order to find the compensations, but now the English taxpayer, in consideration of a peace which is not a peace and never will be a peace, in these hard and troubled times is to come forward and put his hand in his pocket to pay the unfortunate people
whose property has been destroyed and to relieve murderers and assassins of their liability. A more disgraceful proposal was never made by any Government in this country or, I might almost say, in any country with the exception of Soviet Russia. Possibly Russia might do the same thing, but that is about the only country which suggests itself to me, unless it is a very inferior South American Republic. Then I understand that the unfortunate person who has had his house burned and property destroyed and who has succeeded in a recognised Court of Law in getting his claim substantiated and an amount of damages awarded to him, is to have the whole of his case re-opened by a tribunal which is not a Court of Law, but is to consist of one Sinn Feiner, one unfortunate Loyalist, who will be lucky if he is not shot should he give a decision against the Sinn Feiner, and a still more unfortunate legal authority, I presume some judge who is to be taken away from performing his duties here or in Ireland and to be put in that very difficult position.
It is a most extraordinary proposition and is really a travesty of justice. It is the setting up of a new tribunal to override the decisions of a recognised Court of Law. I do not think we can ever conduct the affairs of a great Empire in such a way. The sooner the country wakes up and understands the horrible mess into which the Government have got this country the better. As I understand it, where certain reprisals have taken place either by the forces known as the Black and Tans or by the Forces of the Crown, the British taxpayer is to pay for them. As to whether those reprisals were right or wrong I would not like to express an opinion at the moment, but at any rate they were to a certain extent supported by the present Government and by no one more than by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen opposite on more than one occasion have made allusions to these reprisals. The Government said that in some cases reprisals were committed without their authority. But the Government did not take steps to put the reprisals down and they continued. In other cases reprisals were undertaken with the authority of the Crown.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No. Only in particular cases in the martial law area
under the instructions of the Commanding Officer, on whom the responsibility rested.

Mr. MOSLEY: The Prime Minister, when challenged on three or four occasions to repudiate his having given authority for the carrying out of reprisals refused to do so and accepted the responsibility for every reprisal.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Merely because the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked the Prime Minister to give an answer suitable to himself, it does not follow, because the Prime Minister remained silent, that he agreed. I have again and again said that there was no policy of reprisals except for military purposes in the martial law area. All these frequent accusations against the Government of having had a policy of reprisals are not only untrue but, to my mind, are knowingly untrue.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know that my statement is at variance with the statement of the Chief Secretary, I said I was perfectly aware that the Government in many cases had repudiated any authority for reprisals. I was not aware that any punishment had been inflicted on the people who made the reprisals. There were some cases where the Government had authorised reprisals. Now I understand the Chief Secretary to admit that I was correct. He has dotted the "is" and crossed the "t's" by saying that in the martial law areas, with the authority of the commanding officer, certain reprisals were made, and, I think, rightly made.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: On military grounds.

Sir F. BANBURY: Are we to pay the people whose property was destroyed by the authority of the commanding officer in the martial law area? I do not know whether this is a policy of silence to which no importance is to be attached. At any rate the Chief Secretary has not contradicted me, and therefore I am justified in presuming that we are to pay, that is to say that the British taxpayer, having conducted a just—I will not call it a campaign because it was not a campaign—a just chase after murderers and robbers, and finding it was necessary, in order to capture these people or to punish them, to do certain things quite rightly approved by the Government, has
now to come forward and to pay. I am not a very great oracle on the platform, but I would like to get a meeting of the people who are now groaning under the immense burden of taxation and to put a question to them. I would ask them, did they ever think that when this just retribution was inflicted upon these rebels and assassins the whole law of England (which says that where there are riots and damage caused by riots, the people of the area shall pay) shall not only be abrogated, but that where a person, on the authority of the Commanding Officer in a certain district, is believed by that Commanding Officer to have done certain evil deeds, and that Commanding Officer has punished him by destroying his property, that person is to be put in the same position as, or in a very much better position than the loyalists, because the loyalists may be paid in paper money and the person who has committed murders and robberies may be paid in English gold. I certainly trust that the electors and taxpayers will investigate this and see whether or not the time has come when this sort of thing should be brought to an end. I have very great sympathy with the Irish loyalists and as a taxpayer I should not myself grudge this payment to them, but at the same time, if this Estimate goes to a Division, I shall vote against it as a protest against the abominable conduct of the Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: To-day we are footing the bill, or at least we are beginning to foot the bill.
The mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small.
We are beginning to pay for the reprisal policy of His Majesty's Government. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is quite incapable of feeling the ignominy of his position. I notice the right hon. Gentleman who is replacing him in charge of Ireland, and who introduced the Debate to-day, is prepared to leave the Debate in his hands rather than face the ignominy himself. The speech of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is unanswerable. The Government are now paying for what they officially authorised to be done by the troops in Ireland, not merely in a doubtful peace, but in a war indemnity to be paid by this country. That is the result of the policy of reprisals.
In the long run the British taxpayer is being asked to pay a war indemnity for the follies of the present Government.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: As a result of surrender.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Not only as a result of surrender, but as a result of their complete absence of any recognition of the humiliation of their position. It is not merely that they are shaking hands with murder to bring about peace. They are seeking to grasp even the little fingers of the men whom they were chasing. The rebels are now the masters; the rebels can afford to offer contemptuously one finger to the former masters. I wonder how the military feel when the people whom they have been chasing, kicking and shooting, and upon whom they have been practising "Black and Tannery," are now, not only their colleagues, but their contemptuous colleagues. Is there no feeling of discomfort on the Treasury Bench at the new situation? In any case, hon. Members who have consistently opposed "Black and Tannery" in Ireland and who have supported all through a settlement on Dominion lines—which would have been possible when they first suggested it—will have no hand, act or part in asking the British taxpayer to pay this war indemnity to the Irish people. We know perfectly well that this is the fault of the Government, and that this humiliation has been brought, not only upon them, but upon Great Britain, and we shall register in the only possible way our contempt for the actions of the Government in the past and their action in the present by voting against them in the Lobby.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I am sorry I did not hear the opening speech of the Chief Secretary, but I have been told the gist of his remarks, and it seems to me that the handing over of this sum to the Provisional Government is premature, for several reasons. In the first place, as has been pointed out, the Provisional Government is not by any means sure and certain in its functions at present, and until it is so, I see no reason why this great sum of money should be handed over to be dealt with by them. There are an enormous number of claims in addition to the criminal injury claims
against the Government, such as the payment of superannuation to Local Government Board officials who have been deprived of their proper superannuation allowances, or have been fired out by Sinn Fein councils. Until row they have been paid out of the moneys which have been held back by the Lord Lieutenant with the authority of this House. These payments are now stopped, and yet we are going to hand over the money which was earmarked for these people, and also for the criminal injury claims, to the Irish Provisional Government. Several leading members of that Government have intimated their intention of declaring themselves eventually a Republic, and of cutting themselves altogether away from this country. I have in my hand a letter from one of these Local Government Board officials in which he says:
The Local Government Board for Ireland refused to acquiesce in the dismissals—
That is the dismissal of these officials—
and fixed retiring allowances for them. The Councils and other bodies, in pursuance of their determination not to recognise the Local Government Board, refuse to pay the superannuation, and on the recommendation of the Board orders were made by the Lord Lieutenant directing that they should be paid out of the Local Taxation Account. i.e., out of the grants now being withheld from the public bodies in question.
He goes on to say that these payments have now stopped, and that these loyal officials are not being paid what is due to them and what the Government must eventually pay them. On top of that we are going to hand over a great sum of money, which has been held back for this purpose, to a Government in Ireland, which is by no means stable. The money may be used, for all we know, in order to buy arms and increase the strength of the Irish Republican Army. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said a great deal against the Government which, unfortunately, I cannot criticise, because this certainly is due to the policy of the Government. The difference between his opinion and mine is that I object to the Government surrendering, whereas he has always advocated their doing so—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I always advocate not exercising that militarist provocation which must inevitably end in surrender.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: Quite so, and when the Irish Republican Army were carrying out a campaign which has stained the annals of Ireland for hundreds of years to come, a campaign of assassination—not of war at all, but of filthy murder and assassination—where did the support of the Irish Republican Army come from but from those benches opposite? You were always pressing the Government to give way to them. What Government worthy of the name would allow officials and women and children to be murdered? There were seven women murdered since January last year by these assassins, and what Government worthy of the name—even a Labour Government, if it was in power—would stand that?

Mr. SWAN: That was due to your policy.

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: What Government, I ask, would not have suppressed or tried to suppress that disorder? It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Members opposite, who always wanted the Government to surrender to the assassins, to complain when the bill has got to be paid. Yes, unfortunately, the British taxpayer will have to pay an enormous bill. The hon. and gallant Member said this would be a much cheaper policy than the policy of going on to suppress disorder. He did not say "suppress disorder," but he suggested that. It is going to be a much more expensive policy as far as cash is concerned. The claims of the rebel Government in Ireland have been set forth in papers which they presented officially to the Congress of the United States last year. The Dail Eireann presented a document to Congress in which they claimed no less a sum than £4,500,000,000 as what England owed to Ireland. In that sum they claimed £3,000,000,000 for loss of man-power and £330,000,000 for over-taxation, at the rate of £2,750,000 a year for 120 years. They claimed £100,000,000 for excessive taxation during the War, although Ireland sent about one-third of the quota of men she ought to have sent to the War, and they made up altogether a sum of £4,500,000,000. That shows that as these claims are going to be set off against any claims we have against them for their share of the War debt, which, if they paid according to their population, would
be £800,000,000, this country is not going to get one penny of Ireland's share of the War taxation, but that on the contrary the English taxpayer will have to pay the whole of Ireland's share of the War taxation, in addition to all these claims under the Criminal Injuries Act and in addition to the claims for which we now hear our Government have accepted responsibility, namely, the claims of men whose property was burnt or destroyed in reprisal for crimes committed in their district in the martial law area. Those sums will be enormous, and therefore I say, instead of being a cheaper policy, it will be dearer as regards money. Whether it will be cheaper as regards life I do not know, but in regard to money, the policy of surrender will load the English taxpayer for years and years with probably a sum of not less than £1,000,000,000.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If Home Rule had not been wrecked by the hon. and gallant Member's party, none of this trouble would have arisen and Ireland would have been in the War with us.

2.0 P.M.

Lieut.- Colonel ARCHER - SHEE: I should be out of order to enter into an argument on the Home Rule question. We are asked to hand this money over to this Government, and it is by no means certain that the Provisional Government in three months' time will not have been destroyed and a Republican Government under the de Valera people established. How do we know that any Agreement they have made with the Government will not be torn up and thrown in our faces? In all probability it will, because, as we know, the postponement of the elections is only for the purpose of allowing the de Valera people to consolidate their strength. At any rate, the Provisional Government was unable to carry its point of getting an immediate election, and the time will undoubtedly operate in favour of the de Valerists. I think the point made by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) was a very important one, and one which this Committee ought to insist upon, and that is, that these payments should either be made simultaneously or should be made in gold. Otherwise, one can see that loyalists whose property has been destroyed or whose people have been murdered, and in favour of whom com-
pensation awards have been given, will not receive those awards, but will, on the contrary, in all probability be robbed by the Provisional Government. Something much more certain must be put into the Agreement than we have heard. Perhaps the Chief Secretary will give some assurance that the point raised by the hon. Member for Oxford University will not be lost sight of and that compensation, if awarded, will be made certainly payable and as rapidly as possible after the award has been given.

Mr. E. HARMSWORTH: Our first consideration of this question should be from the point of view of the taxpayer in providing the money, and this very large sum of money apparently is to be only the first instalment of an unestimated sum which we shall have to pay eventually. I think this being the first occasion on which we have been presented with this Vote that we should be given some Estimate, however rough, of what exact sum the Chief Secretary expects will have to be extracted from this Committee in order to pay these claims. We apparently are to take—and it seems to me an extremely bad bargain—all the claims against our losses, and the Sinn Feiners are to take all the claims against theirs. First of all, I think the matter is a great deal dependent upon the light in which you look at it. A year ago the Chief Secretary was calling these representatives of Sinn Fein rebels and murderers, and if we are to regard them as such, it is scarcely fair that we should be required to pay for the damage done in trying to keep law and order in Ireland, however badly we succeeded. If, on the other hand, the Chief Secretary has changed his mind and does not now consider that they were rebels and murderers a year ago, and if they were making a legitimate war, they have a perfect right to demand that we should pay their claims. Whichever way it is, personally I do not see the hurry for this Vote. The Government disregarded the war claims of the people of this country for three years, and it was only last night that they brought in a Vote for £100,000, and if that is the case, I do not see why they should not keep the Irish people—much as I admit their claim to something or other from some Government—waiting at any rate until the Provisional Govern-
ment in Ireland is either recognised as a stable Government or some other Government which is more stable has taken its place.
Supposing this money is paid over and Messrs. Collins and Griffith and so on are beaten in Ireland, what is to prevent them from decamping with the money? I do not say they will decamp with it, but their record in the past two years is not that, at any rate, of men with absolutely honourable intentions, according to the Chief Secretary's own words a year ago, and if they can wage a revolt, as they did a year ago, I do not see what is to prevent them, supposing they are beaten in Ireland, from decamping with this money or, at any rate, using it for republican purposes. I do not think this Committee should pass this Vote without an assurance from the Chief Secretary that the money will not be actually paid over until the Treaty Bill which is now before this House has been passed—and apparently now we do not know when the Committee stage will come before us—and the Irish Government is made a legal Government. The other day, on one of these Irish Votes, the Chief Secretary told us that the Irish Government was not a de jure Government, and how can you hand over to a Government which is not a de jure Government a large sum of money like this, which they are to disburse? I would ask the Chief Secretary to give us an undertaking that this money will not be paid over until, at least, it is made a de jure Government by the passing of the Irish Bill.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: We have had a long, and I think, an interesting Debate on this Supplementary Estimate, which does raise great questions resulting from the Treaty between the British Government and the Provisional Government in Ireland. I wish at once to make it clear that the sum I am now asking the Committee to approve goes not in the payment of criminal injuries, but in the payment of Irish services, and is paid direct to the Provisional Government to be distributed by that Government as it sees fit for Irish services in Ireland. Also I want to draw the Committee's attention to this fact. This sum should be regarded as payment on account of such sums as may be due from the British Government to the Irish Free State by agreement between the Governments. It is not an absolute gift,
but a sum to be taken into account when the general settlement some day is ultimately agreed upon.
May I make clear the legal position in reference to criminal injuries? First of all, I have to rule out all reference to Ulster, which is not included in this Vote, but will come before the Committee on an early day on another Vote. The Criminal Injuries Acts, under which claims are paid for damage to individual lives or property, is peculiar to Ireland, and persons who suffer injury in Ireland, are, therefore, and have been since these Acts, in a privileged and favoured position as compared with people of this country or any country of which I know. Under the Criminal Injuries Acts, when a policeman is murdered by an unlawful association, or when a house is maliciously burnt, the policeman's widow or the owner of the house comes before the County Court in the area in which the murder or damage took place, and proves before the Court the extent of the loss or damage. In the normal way, the local rating authority—generally the County Council—appears as defendant against the claimant in order to contest every item, so that the ultimate damage awarded against it would be as small as possible. That arrangement is peculiar to Ireland. The local rating authorities in the majority, and, indeed, ultimately in all the counties in Southern Ireland, refused to recognise the Criminal Injuries Acts, and the Sinn Fein Organisation compelled the local authorities to abstain from appearing as defendants in the various County Courts where these claims are made. The consequence of this was that the great majority of claims made since January, 1920, in Southern Ireland, have been undefended, and, therefore, the verdict in such case is assumed to be the very maximum of the claim. The Government could not appear as defendant in those cases, because the Government has no legal status or standing in those County Courts as defendant in a claim between the injured person and the local rating authority, which, under the Criminal Injuries Acts, is responsible for injuries done.

Major M. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider there has been a defence if the Court did not enquire into the question of who committed the damage, but only the amount of the damage?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I am not going to answer a hypothetical question as to whether there is a defence or not. How could I? I am giving the law. A tribunal is to be set up for that special purpose, and the Chairman, at least, will be a judicial person of high standing. The Commission will have power "to review awards already given in undefended cases. They will further have power to appoint agents, investigators, and assessors, and power to compel the attendance of witnesses and take evidence on oath."

Major WOOD: May I ask what is an undefended case? Is it an undefended case if the Court has enquired into the amount of the damage, but not into the question of who committed it?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the case has not been defended by the legal defendant under the Criminal Injuries Acts, then the case has not been defended. I regret I cannot give the Committee the whole terms of reference in regard to the Commission, hut I can assure the Committee they will be wide. The object of appointing the Commission, among other things, is to allow them so to delegate their powers that all these cases can be expeditiously dealt with, and the whole matter cleared up as soon as possible.

Colonel NEWMAN: That means that there will be more than one Commission, and that there will be Sub-commissioners appointed?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not know whether the term "sub-commissioners" applies, but they will have power to appoint agents, investigators, and assessors, which means that they will be able to delegate their work in order to deal expeditiously with all claims. Certain hon. Members are constantly asking about the production of what is known as the Strickland Report. The usual accusations are made that I promsed this and that, which, in fact, I never did. This is the point now. We are setting up this Commission on an agreed plan, and it is the duty of this Commission to inquire into the damage done to owners of property in Southern Ireland.

Mr. MILLS: And the North?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: What I cannot understand is that certain hon. Members import into their speeches a
sinister bitterness that I am happy to say we never find in dealing with the Provisional Government and its representatives. I cannot, as I have said before, control, and ought not to intervene in judicial proceedings. I cannot say what this judicial Commission will do in reference to the award of damages to property in Southern Ireland, and it would be an impertinence on my part to suggest how they should do their work, say who committed the damage, or how that damage was committed.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I take it that, amongst the other documents the Commission will examine, there will be the Strickland Report. Is it any reflection upon that Commission to let the House of Commons also see that document?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not know what the Commission we are setting up will ask for—

Mr. MOSLEY: Will the document be available for them?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not know. Hon. Members are proceeding to revive the bitterness of the past. To my mind it is more pleasant to look to the future. We have made this agreement with the Provisional Government, and why this particular point should be re-opened by hon. Members opposite passes my understanding. In my opinion it does not make for peace.

Dr. MURRAY: That is the old story.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The story is none the worse for being old. I fancy that the constituency represented by the hon. Gentleman is living on the traditions of the past.

Dr. MURRAY: It is consistent with the past.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The House of Commons agrees generally, I think, with this agreed plan made with the Provisional Government, and it remains, therefore to answer the questions that have been put. I come, first of all, to the very eloquent speech made by the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) who speaks from knowledge of Southern Ireland, and being a sufferer speaks with sympathy towards the
sufferers in that part of Ireland. I have answered his first question as to whether there will be one Commission to do the whole of the work. The second point is: who will pay. Let me make that perfectly clear to the Committee. In respect to personal damage the British Government will pay all those persons—ex-policemen, soldiers, civil servants, magistrates, or their dependants or legal representatives, who have claims against the Government or any persons who may be said to be supporters of the British Government. Those personal clams will be paid by the British Government and paid in full, following the award of the Court before whom these claims were heard. I hope that is perfectly clear. The Provisional Government, on is part, undertakes to pay the personal claims of their own supporters.

Sir C. OMAN: In sterling, or how?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I think I have answered that question in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), who, of course, speaks for sterling in a sense that no other Member can. The awards will be paid in sterling to the supporters of the Government in Southern Ireland. The Commission has power to re-open property cases. How far they will re-open them, what evidence they will require, I cannot say, but I hope it will be done just as rapidly as it possibly can be in the interests of the individuals concerned on both sides and in the interests of the peace of Ireland. The payments will be made not all at one time, but as the cases are settled by the Commission. I hope that is clear. The payments must be made through the machinery of the Provisional or Free State Government. I hope that is also clear. We pay our share, and I can assure the Committee on this point, for I will not believe the Provisional Government is not acting fairly and with good-will until there is more evidence-than has yet been adduced to show that they are not. We have to meet hard cases in connection with the forces of the Crown and the supporters of the Government. We have already taken an Estimate for £200,000, and the Committee has approved it, to enable us to snake advances in cases of actual personal hardship, so that in the interval between now and the time when all kinds of awards are paid we will use this money for cases
of actual personal hardship. I myself have had the sad duty of dealing with a great number of these cases. I shall certainly deal with them as sympathetically as I can, while appreciating the fact that I am dealing with public money; and one must, therefore, be most careful how that money is expended.
The alleged cavalier treatment of some persons who have suffered in Ireland was referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Lieut.-Colonel Croft), who is not now in his place. I would remind the Committee again that persons who suffer in Ireland and whose cases come under the Criminal Injuries Act are better treated than they would be if they suffered similar injuries in any other part of the world. Let me give a case in point. I think it is one to which the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth referred. It was a case of an officer of rank, a brigadier. He was killed in Ireland. His legal representative and dependant went to the county court and got an award, which was very large. There was an advance on my authority of the sum of £5,000. If this is the case referred to by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, is he quite right in speaking of cavalier treatment? No such charge could be urged against the Government in respect of criminal injuries. We must not forget that persons in Ireland are treated with a generosity unheard of in any other part of the world.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does a brigadier-general get more compensation under those circumstances than a captain or a sergeant or other ranks?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Under the Criminal Injuries Acts the representative of a private soldier, a lieutenant, a captain, a general or other ranks goes to the county court and proves the amount of damage a wife has suffered by the loss, for example, of her husband who has been murdered. The county court judge comes to a decision and gives an award. He may give any amount, and that amount, whatever it is, is going to be honoured in reference to the British forces and their supporters.

Lieut - Commander KENWORTHY: And we pay it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Of course, we pay it, and I should have thought that was one of the splendid things that we
are doing. This is a large bill, and this legislation is favourable to persons in Ireland to the extent that no other legislation is favourable in any part of the world.

Sir C. OMAN: Will the case which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned produce a counterclaim to the extent of £5,000 against the Irish Government?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The hon. Member cannot have been in the Committee when the plan was outlined. In reference to personal injuries each side pays for its own casualties, and therefore we are responsible for the awards that have been given by the County Courts in Southern Ireland in reference to the casualties to the forces of the Crown and their supporters.

Sir C. OMAN: It seems very unjust.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I do not think it is unjust, having regard to the whole situation and the fact that a Treaty has been made. This arrangement is consequential upon the Treaty. At any rate, it relieves the anxieties of the sufferers in Ireland and others who have suffered in the course of hostilities in that country. Another important point was put by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and other hon. Members, who asked whether the money would be withheld until it is certain that the Provisional Government can carry on. I do not think we are justified in saying that the Provisional Government cannot carry on.

Sir F. BANBURY: Not after yesterday?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: No, we are not justified. We have made this agreement with the Provisional Government in the Treaty. That Government is without funds, and we have agreed in this Supplementary Estimate to hand over this sum of money for local Irish services. I think it is only fair that this money should be handed over. We are now in the Committee stage of this Estimate, and I cannot see that we are justified in withholding this money from the Provisional Government, in spite of anything that has happened in Ireland since we made this proposal. Of course, the matter can be raised on the Report stage next week or the week after. As to when these claims will be paid, personal awards will be settled as soon as possible. Awards in reference to property will be paid as
the amounts are decided by the Commission set up by agreement with the Provisional Government.

Sir F. BANBURY: Who is going to pay these claims?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: They will be paid by the two parties concerned. The damage done by the two contending parties in Ireland will be paid for by those who did the damage. There are a certain number of border-line cases in which it is difficult to say who did the damage, but that is a matter for settlement in the future.

Colonel LAMBERT WARD: The right hon. Gentleman differentiates between personal and material damage. Will he give the Committee the reason for this differentiation?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: This is the reason which weighs most strongly with us. Damage to property cannot affect individual sufferers like the loss of the life of a policeman or a soldier, or a civilian who happens to be the breadwinner of a family, because the women and children are left without means. We thought that to meet the emergency, personal claims which are smaller in total amount should be in full so that the agony of bereavement can be met to some extent by the generosity of this honourable House. Further we also believe that a personal claim does not lend itself to extravagant awards as was undoubtedly the case in some of the awards made in the case of property. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) asked if I could give the Committee the total cost of the whole of this business. It is impossible for me to give anything like an accurate estimate of the claims for property. I may say, however, that in the area of the Northern Government where the claims are defended it has been found that the claims have been reduced by one-third or one-half in the great majority of cases. Therefore when I tell the House that the total number of claims in Southern Ireland up to the end of last year amounted to something like £9,000,000 or £10,000,000 this will give it some idea. Only about £1,000,000 of the claims have been paid on account. These figures are not, however, to be taken as an estimate of what the total will be of all the claims made in
Southern Ireland. It is because we know that some of these claims are extravagant, and that the awards are extravagant that we are asking the House to set up this tribunal to review the awards. I am sure the Committee would not expect me to give any further estimate, because that is quite impossible.
Another important point has been raised. During the course of the recent troubles in Ireland a number of local authorities dismissed loyal servants of the Irish. Local Government Board and other Government servants. The Local Government Board refused to acquiesce in their dismissal, and the salaries of these men were properly paid out of amounts which under other circumstances would have been paid to the local authorities who dismissed them. We have been in conference with the Provisional Government in reference to these servants, and I may say that this money will not be paid over to the Provisional Government until the position of these loyal ex-servants is assured by the Provisional Government. I am very glad to be able to make that statement. Whatever the question of policy may be in dealing with individuals who have been the victims of their loyalty to the Government during the troublesome period in Ireland, the Committee undoubtedly has a special interest in them. I trust the statement I have made will render it unnecessary for hon. Members further to debate this Vote. As to the awards for personal injuries the interest runs from the date of serving the preliminary notice, which was generally within a few days of the actual injury. With reference to property, interest at 5 per cent. runs from an date of the decision of the County court. That is provided for in the Act of 1920.

Colonel NEWMAN: Will that 5 per cent. run on until the award is resettled?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Yes, it must by law, and no matter how long it takes to settle the award, the interest will accrue. That is a very important point.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, earlier in this speech, that this £1,100,000 was going to be handed over to the Provisional Government at once, but later on he added that it would not be handed over till certain things had taken place.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is so, but I am perfectly certain that these local government officials will be fairly and properly dealt with by the Provisional Government. Still, in order to make sure, I am quite prepared to state that the money will not be handed over until they have been so dealt with. The whole question can be raised, if necessary, on the Report stage.

Major M. WOOD: When is the Commission likely to start its work?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As soon as we get the Vote and agree on the names of the Commissioners. The two things go together.

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: How long will it take to do its work? Will it last seven or eight years?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have explained that the Commission will have absolute power, in order to expedite its work, to appoint a number of other Commissions, as the quicker the work is done the better. May I make an appeal to the Committee to give me this Vote at this stage? There are many hon. Members who want to speak on a subsequent Vote. I have done my best to answer all questions, and I think the lucid statement of the Colonial Secretary met with the general approval of the Committee. The arrangement is a result of an agreement between the two Governments, and time is an important element.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The Committee should understand what we are doing. We are asked to pass a Vote involving a sum of £1,000,000 or £2,000,000, of which, until this morning, we were not liable for a single penny. We are told that an agreement has been come to between the Government and the Sinn Fein representatives, but this is the first we have heard of that agreement which makes us liable for this large sum of money. It is for the Committee to say whether they approve of the agreement and the amount to be expended under it. The amount which is to be spent is to go first for personal injuries, and we have this extraordinary position. I do not mind so much wasting money in these particular cases. People have been murdered in Ireland and I have frequently brought before the House the case of a friend of mine who was foully murdered by order
of the Sinn Fein authorities. His wife claimed compensation in the County. Court, and got a substantial award, the case being undefended. The Chief Secretary has pointed out that in undefended cases larger sums were usually awarded than in defended cases. There are a very large number of these undefended cases, and we are to pay all these sums in full without any further inquiry at all. There is to be no further Commission on them, and the British taxpayer who, until this morning, was not liable for a single penny is now to shoulder the burden. I am not saying it is wrong to pay in full without further inquiry. All I suggest is that the Committee should understand that that is the position. I am glad the widow of my friend who was foully murdered should have the fullest possible compensation, but, looking at it from the point of the British taxpayer, I say a very unsatisfactory way of assessing compensation has been adopted in these cases. When the award was made in that particular case, the idea was that it would not be worth the paper upon which it was written, and therefore it did not matter much whether a large or a small sum was given. Now we are going to take over the whole of these awards, which were made in that unsatisfactory way, and I want the Committee to understand that that is what they are now doing.
Then I come to the question of compensation for property. In regard to that a different arrangement has been made. In the case of personal injury we are to pay our people and Sinn Fein is to pay their people, but that arrangement has been reversed in the case of injury to property, and there is to be a trial to ascertain who has caused the injury in each case. My mouth waters at the idea of the litigation which will be involved in this. Commissions will sit in the South of Ireland to determine who came in the dead of the night and burnt a given house down, and those who know anything of the Irish Law Courts can fully realise that there will be some very interesting evidence on both sides. It is probably known quite well who has done the injury, but all the awards which have been made are to be scrapped, and the Commission is to inquire afresh into the amount of injury done. That is quite right, but when that has been ascertained, what is to happen? We are to pay for
the injury done by our troops, a liability which we are not under at the present time. If the Committee is willing to undertake that liability now, I have no more to say. I come to the next point. They are to pay for injuries done to our people, but where is the money to come from? It is on this Vote.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: indicated dissent.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I hope I am wrong, but, if so, where is the money to come from? Let us assume that, this Commission having been set up, there is an undefended case, say, in County Kilkenny, where it is undoubted that the injury was done by the Sinn Feiners. The Commission goes down, there is no defence, it is admitted that the injury has been done by Sin Feiners, and an award is made for £200. From where is that money to come? The right hon. Gentleman has ceased to shake his head, which is something. Where is it to come from if it is not on this Vote? It is to be advanced to the Sinn Fein Government out of this Vote, and we are to get it back whenever they have money to repay it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: That is not right at all. The Supplementary Estimate states that this amount of £1,130,000 is for Miscellaneous Services to be administered by the Provisional Government, not for compensation.

Sir F. BANBURY: But when they have got the money, will not they use it for compensation, if they pay compensation at all?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot say that. This money is to be advanced to the Provisional Government for Irish services,
under condition that it shall be regarded as a payment to account of such sums as may be found due from the British Government to the Irish Free State in connection with the arrangements for settlement between the Governments.
That is the explanation of the Supplementary Estimate. The next point is, where will the Provisional Government find the money to pay the awards made against them by the Commission which is going to be set up? With regard to that, the whole idea of the future government of Ireland is that in due course the
revenues of Ireland will be collected by the Government of the Free State, and from those revenues they must pay the claims, or, if not, they must, like other Governments, borrow the money.

Sir F. BANBURY: Nobody will lend it.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The next point is that at that stage all expenditure on the part of this country ceases in Ireland.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Really, the right hon. Gentleman has been so candid that I am surprised at his thus correcting me. We are voting a million and a quarter for Irish services, that is to say, the general services of the Irish Free State, and one of those services will be, under this new agreement of which we heard this morning, to establish a tribunal in Southern Ireland. The expenses of that will come out of this Vote, and the amount awarded also, as part of the Irish services. It is true that it is to be repaid to us at some future time, but in the interval we are handing over a million and a quarter to the Provisional Government on the understanding that they will repay some portion of it to us when the time comes when they do collect the revenues of Ireland. But do not let us misunderstand the position at the moment. We are putting down a million and a quarter, while the Provisional Government are not putting down a penny, because they have not a penny to put down. The result is that any sum awarded during the next few months—possibly the next few years; at any rate for a considerable time—to people who have been injured by Sinn Feiners, will have to come out of money provided by this Government and advanced in this way to the Irish Free State. I do venture to submit to the Committee that they should think twice before they carry out this agreement with the Irish Government. I voted against the Treaty, but nevertheless, now that it is made, I certainly mean to assist the Government to carry out its terms strictly. I think it is a Treaty that we are bound to carry out. But this agreement is no part of the Treaty at all. We are told by the Government for the first time to-day that they have entered into this agreement without the sanction of the House of Commons up to the present. If we carry this Vote now, it will receive the sanction of the House of Commons, and the right hon. Gentleman, when we have an oppor-
tunity of going into it on Report, will say, "You have sanctioned it in a large Committee, and you must not go back upon your word." Therefore, I ask the Committee to think twice before passing this harmless looking Vote; because it really involves an important principle and puts a serious burden on the taxpayer which he should not be called upon to shoulder at all.

Sir F. BANBURY: I should like to reassure my hon. and learned Friend on one point. I do not think he need be anxious that, if we vote this money, much of it will go to recoup loyalists in Ireland for damage to their property; it will be taken to provide means for Mr. Collins to fight Mr. de Valera. That is what will happen to it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) who, I believe, had his house burnt when the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull was staying with him—

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was before the War that I was staying with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Sir F. BANBURY: My hon. and gallant Friend will look for compensation to whatever Government may happen to be in power in Ireland at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman says that we are looking forward to the Free State Government producing revenue out of Ireland, and that if they cannot they will borrow money. I am certain that, if the right hon. Gentleman has been able to make any savings during the last two or three years, he will not lend those savings to the Provisional Government of which he is so fond. He is not built that way. He would not have reached the position he has reached had he done such foolish things as that. There are one or two points that I should like to enforce, because, while I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, who I think has put the situation very clearly, there are a good many more Members in the Committee than there were earlier. What is it that we are going to vote upon? It is this. In the case, say, of those unfortunate officers in Dublin whose rooms were entered one morning at half-past eight or nine o'clock, and who were shot—there was no question of fighting, they were murdered in their own rooms before their wives—we are going to pay for that
damage, and the Irish people are going to get off scot free. That is the first point. Then, under the orders of the Officer Commanding in a martial law area, certain property belonging to rebels was destroyed, and we are to pay. Where property belonging to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Finchley has been destroyed, if it is found to have been destroyed by Sinn Feiners, they are to pay. Therefore it comes to this, that we are to pay the rebels and the rebels are to pay the loyalists. I do not think the loyalists will get much out of it, and I shall vote against the Government.

Viscount CURZON: I was obliged to leave the Committee after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, and have only just been able to get back, and I am not sure what has passed in the meantime, but there is one point that I desired to make. What guarantee can be given to those English Members of Parliament who have to vote upon this that the actual money asked for in this Vote will be spent for the purpose for which it is wanted? That is the crucial point. I regard the Treaty as a thing which has now been settled, unfortunately for all of us; but at any rate it is for us now to try and carry out its provisions. What guarantee can we be given that this money will ever actually be spent for the purpose for which it is wanted? The Colonial Secretary endeavoured to justify the raising of this money by saying that it was for the purpose of such necessary things as roads. Roads may become very necessary for the British Government when they have to reconquer Ireland one of these days. I want to know that the money will be spent on roads. I should also like to ask under what Vote the £1,500,000 to be advanced to the Northern Government, in respect to damage caused by Sinn Feiners to loyalists in the Northern Province, will come, or will it be a special Vote?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: indicated ascent.

Viscount CURZON: I understand the Government will be responsible for all claims for personal injuries to its own forces. I take it, therefore, if this Vote is passed, that anybody who had any claim whatever outstanding against the Government in respect of a personal injury will be paid forthwith?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As soon as possible.

Viscount CURZON: Could the right hon. Gentleman say when they may expect it? Could he give some sort of indication—one month, or two, or three?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): That question has been put several times, and has been dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, and it would be a repetition on his part to deal with it again.

Viscount CURZON: I apologise for putting it again, but, as I have said, I have not been able to be present. I understand it has not been categorically answered, and if a specific answer could be given, it might help. Am I correct in supposing that this million and a quarter represents the total money going to the local authorities which was intercepted? I understand some of that money has already been paid out, and if that is so, how are we ever going to get that back from the Sinn Feiners? I do hope the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to reply will give us a specific answer.

Colonel NEWMAN: Before the Committee goes to a Division I want to say a few words to the Committee. When I spoke earlier in the day I said I was speaking not so much my views as the views of a committee who have been pressing forward the claims of people who had suffered injury in person or property. I have not had a chance of consulting my committee, and it is not for me to give absolute agreement to the terms set out by the Colonial Secretary and the Chief Secretary, but I would like to thank the Chief Secretary for throwing a certain amount of light on points which the Colonial Secretary either could not or would not explain. But so far as we loyalists are concerned, he has shown that there is a very big fly in our ointment. As far as I can make out, we are not to be paid out of a joint pool, we are to be paid directly by the Irish Provisional

3.0 P.M.

Government. We have got to wait till somebody, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, or whoever it may be, absolutely writes a cheque to us personally for the damages which we have been awarded. I like to believe that the Irish Provisional Government will be strictly honourable men, willing to meet all their obligations, and not showing any discrimination, but I am not so certain. People like myself are marked down. I would not like to say that I should be among the first half-dozen that would be paid by the Provisional Government, even though I were among the first half-dozen to have my claim decided. That is a big fly in the ointment, and on Report we shall have something more to say. Then there are what I call the post-Treaty cases. Reference has already been made to these by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) who, if I may say so, put the case rather badly. This particular agreement does not affect cases occurring after the Treaty. Cases from that time onwards are to be dealt with in the ordinary way in the ordinary Irish Courts. What chance have those hundreds of people got who have claims against the Republican party or other persons, whoever they may be? They have to go to some sort of court and try to make their case good. It is not fair? You ought not to draw a hard-and-fast line between the post-Treaty cases and the pre-Treaty cases. If the right hon. Gentleman looks into it, he will find hundreds of cases of rare hardship concerning men who have had their land seized, their cattle driven off, their cattle sold, and their ricks burnt—all since the signing of the Treaty, To get compensation these men have to go to some republican or Provisional Government Court. I do not think that is fair, and hope the Government will reconsider it.

Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £1,129,900, be granted for the said Service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 49; Noes, 139.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[3.3 p.m.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hogge, James Myles


Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Holmes, J. Stanley


Ball, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Galbraith, Samuel
Inskip, Thomas Walker H.


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Glanville, Harold James
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Cape, Thomas
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Cautley, Henry Strother
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Hartshorn, Vernon
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Mills, John Edmund
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.
Willoughby, Lieut-Col. Hon. Claud


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Wilson, James (Dudley)


Mosley, Oswald
Remnant, Sir James
Windsor, Viscount


Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wolmer, Viscount


Myers, Thomas
Stewart, Gershom
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Nall, Major Joseph
Swan, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Naylor, Thomas Ellis
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. D.
Mr. W. Smith.


Nield, Sir Herbert
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.



Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wignall, James



NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Amery, Leopold C. M. S.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward


Armitage, Robert
Gilbert, James Daniel
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Sir Hamar
Norman, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Greig, Colonel James William
Palmer, Major Godfrey Mark


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. Frederick E.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Barnston, Major Harry
Hambro, Angus Valdemar
Percy, Charles (Tynemouth)


Barrand, A. R.
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles


Benn, Capt. Sir I. H., Bart.(Gr'nw'h)
Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Betterton, Henry B.
Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Borwick, Major G. O.
Haslam, Lewis
Pratt, John William


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Purchase, H. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Roes, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hills, Major John Waller
Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)


Brassey, H. L. C.
Hinds, John
Reid, D. D.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Remer, J. R.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hood, Sir Joseph
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)


Burdon, Colonel Rowland
Houston, Sir Robert Patterson
Rose, Frank H.


Burgoyne, Lt.-Col. Alan Hughes
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Carew, Charles Robert S.
Jesson, C.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Carr, W. Theodore
Jodrell, Neville Paul
Seager, Sir William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Sharman-Crawford, Robert G.


Cheyne, Sir William Watson
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Coats, Sir Stuart
Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Larmor, Sir Joseph
Sturrock, J. Leng


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Law, Alfred J. (Rochdale)
Taylor, J.


Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Cope, Major William
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell- (Maryhill)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lloyd, George Butler
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lloyd-Greame, Sir P.
Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Lorden, John William
Waring, Major Walter


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Loseby, Captain C. E.
White, Col. G. D. (Southport)


Davies, Sir William H. (Bristol, S.)
Lowther, Maj.-Gen. Sir C. (Penrith)
Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)


Doyle, N. Grattan
M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)


Edgar, Clifford B.
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Winfrey, Sir Richard


Edge, Captain Sir William
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James [...].
Wise, Frederick


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Wood, Major Sir S. Hill- (High Peak)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Evans, Ernest
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Morris, Richard
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfrey
Murray, William (Dumfries)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Flannery, Sir James Fortescue
Neat, Arthur
Colonel Leslie Wilson and Mr.


Forrest, Walter
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
McCurdy.


Original Question put, and agreed to.

FOREIGN OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £26,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, including the News Department.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say a few words to amplify the note which appears
on the Estimate. The Committee will observe that in point of fact the Foreign Office is not asking the Committee for any new money. What we are dealing with this afternoon is a question of an over-estimate. The Committee is generally aware that the Passport Department of the Foreign Office is one of the few financially profitable Departments in any branch of the State service. It was estimated that in the current financial year the Appropriation-in-Aid would equal £136,000. That estimate is not by way of being realised, and the Committee may be interested to learn why that is so. I am informed that this is one of
those many instances of unsatisfactory trade conditions of which, unhappily, so many are present at this moment. The cause of our over-estimate is due entirely, I am informed, to the falling off in travel for pleasure purposes and in travel for commercial purposes. There is no other reason, so far as I can ascertain, for this falling off in the revenue of the Passport Department. The Committee will not expect me to make any long statement in regard to this Vote. It is a pure question of accountancy, and I shall be glad if they will give me the Vote with as little delay as possible.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £1,000.
I am sorry that I cannot agree to the Vote. This passport business is very like the Post Office. A point comes when the people simply get sick of the whole thing, and chuck it. It is such a business getting passports, visas, and other things, not so much with us but with other countries who keep up the system because we do, that people simply do not travel. The. Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs says that so many people are not travelling for pleasure. Can you wonder? If you want to go to Switzerland you have to get three visas, and you have to incur other expenses. I went last September, and I had to get three visas.

Captain ELLIOT: It has been altered since then. There is no French visa now.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You have to get a passport, a photograph, and you have to pay your fees. We all know that photographs untouched are not flattering things on a passport. You have to stand in a queue among the ducks in St. James Park, and it is all an infernal nuisance, with the result that instead of this Department being an asset, as the hon. Member rather led us to suppose, and paying for itself, we have to foot the Bill. Of course, it finds congenial employment for a number of people who otherwise would be out of work, and who would have to find their means of livelihood in the ordinary labour market. It is like putting up the price of telegrams, postcards, and stamps, and after a certain time the revenue falls off. By putting too big a tax on beer and tobacco after a
time you kill the goose that lays the golden egg. That is what has happened here.
This passport system has been kept on to the annoyance of people who come to this country, and the annoyance of our own people who are travelling on their lawful business. It does not do any good as regards the purpose for which it is alleged to be kept on. It does not keep out of this country criminals and other undesirable people. This is the easiest country in the world to get into, because it has such a large seaboard, and has so many ports. Anyone who wants to get in can get in if he knows the ropes. I do not know the ropes, but I do not make any personal complaint, for I have to thank the hon. Gentleman for the great courtesy which I have always received from the representatives of the Foreign Office, but anyone can get in who ships by a small steamer and goes ashore with the cook to buy provisions without any passport, visa, or anything else. One can go to-day from this country to Tashkent, Kabul, or any other place underground without any visa, passport, or anything else. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's advisers will bear that out. Now and then one may be caught, and may or may not get punished. It is uncomfortable, and I daresay expensive, because a great deal of bribery is involved, but it can he done. The system does not work, and the sooner the whole passport system is scrapped the better for British trade and the law-abiding person, because the evilly-disposed person has no difficulty in getting all over Europe without these passports. The only real good done by this system is that it keeps in employment a number of redundant civil servants and others who ought to be doing more useful work. The business men of this country know the loss to which we are put by this antiquated system.
This passport system, I am informed, is sometimes used for political purposes. I would ask whether the Foreign Office have lent themselves to the misuse of the passport system? It is a fact that people of certain political views in this country, when they go to get passports, have four holes stamped in the spare pages in the centre for visas, and that this is a sign that these people are of a political colour rather to the left and
opposed to the present order of things? I am very glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has gone away to find out about this, and as to whether this passport system is being used as an underhand method for the purpose of persecuting English people. I have seen passports treated in this way. They have not punched my passport. British subjects having this secret mark upon their passport are left open to annoyance and petty persecution. Anything of that sort ought to be done quite openly. People ought to have passports which give them full protection, as the front page of the passport says that they are entitled to full protection. There ought to be no secret signs or things of that sort on the document.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In introducing this Supplementary Estimate the hon. Gentleman stated that it would involve no further burden on the community, but I think he misunderstood the real drawback of the passport system. It is true that in the passport system you have up to the present a self-supporting organisation. The fees for the passports pay the expenses of the Passport Department. But that does not alter the fact that the whole system, the fees paid for passports and for visas, are a burden upon industry, and that this causes the slackness in trade Which results in a smaller demand for passports. It not merely taxation which goes into the pocket of the Exchequer with which we are concerned, but the institution of any form of taxation upon the trading community of the country, even though that money pays for the upkeep of the Department. We are entitled, therefore, to protest against this Supplementary Estimate. The reason why I and my Friends oppose the system is that it is devised in order to keep apart races and nations. We believe that the future peace of the world depends very largely on free intercourse between all races and all nations. The present system is a survival of the old 18th century system. The whole passport system had ceased long before the War. The War re-introduced it into civilisation. Since the War we have consistently made efforts to abolish the system, but the system has been consistently supported by the Departments and by the Coalition party in this House, though they know perfectly well that it is devised in order to per-
petuate race antagonism and international jealousy.

Mr. JESSON: Are you speaking for Labour?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am. We believe that international jealousy should be swept away as soon as possible and that the way to do that is to secure freedom for people here to go abroad and for people of other countries to come here. If the hon. Gentleman who interrupted thinks he knows what Labour wants better than I do, perhaps he will get up and say so. If he joined the Labour party they would soon tell him. Our object is to get back to reasonably amicable conditions and we believe that free intercourse is the foundation of good relations. Our objection to this passport system and particularly to this Vote goes beyond the mere desire for freer international relations. We believe that the system is used, not by the Foreign Office but by the Home Office in this country, in order to penalise people with advanced views. Quite recently I have had reason to apply to the Foreign Office to assist in granting a visa to this country for an American. I was referred to the Home Office. Over and over again the same thing happens. The Home Office, in effect, through the use of passports, exercises a check upon people who come into this country. This is a device in the interests of the Coalition and is carried out with the consent of the Coalition Members of this House.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: And of Labour, too.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Another Coalition Member speaking in the interest of Labour! I wonder how many of them will be able to substantiate their affection for Labour when they go to the country. [Interruption.] Speaking for Labour—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO, no!"]—I say we object to this censorship on the ground that it is exercised in the interests of the capitalist system and exercised by a Department run in the interests of that system and supervised until recently by Sir Basil Thomson. For all these reasons we are against your passport system. You use it to keep people apart and to stifle the free intercourse of ideas. I should have thought that educated Englishmen would know by now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"]—that
the real strength of this country depends upon the ability of the country to hear all sides. It is only by hearing all sides, by hearing the nonsense as well as the sense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—that the people of the country can choose which is the sense and which is the nonsense. It is an ordinary elementary lesson that if you confine people as to what they may hear, you confine their powers of judgment. Our chief reason for desiring free speech in this country, for desiring to have in this country even people who are not approved of by Sir Basil Thomson, is that in the long run those countries which allow freedom of speech and allow any sort of ideas to he freely spread about are the countries which survive. They alone have that strength of character, that power of judgment, which enables them to overcome even such a temporary madness as that of the 1918 Election.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: Only one point has been raised which calls for a definite answer and that is the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), that passports for undesirable people are perforated in a peculiar way, so as to warn the authorities abroad. I have had the opportunity of refreshing my memory with regard to this matter, and I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that no such process takes place at all. I am obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend for the testimony he gave to the courtesy with which this Department is administered. I can assure him, and I may be permitted to assure other Members of the Opposition, that the Foreign Office is always ready to expedite their passage abroad. Regarding photographs, I have myself seen photographs of my hon. and gallant Friend in the Press and I can well believe that they are in great demand, but anyone of those photographs, or rather four copies of any one of them, are all that the Passport Office asks for. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has spoken in eloquent terms about the tax on industry constituted by the passport system. He knows that a passport costs 7s. 6d., and how that can be described, individually or collectively, as a serious tax on industry I cannot imagine. In the present disturbed state of the world
it has been found necessary to have the passport system operating, and even in those countries where it has been modified cards of identity are required, which are not really very distinguishable from passports. Speaking for this Government, and if I may for Labour, I should say that the passport system has very few disadvantages, whereas it has a great number of advantages, as everybody connected with passport travelling abroad is able to say. I really do not think that at the present stage there is any serious complaint which has been brought against the system, and I am certain, from what I know of the administration, that there is no single Member of this Committee who would bring any charge of unwillingness or discourtesy or extravagance on the part of those connected with the administration of this passport system.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: I do not know whether I am in order in referring to something closely associated with the passport system, namely, the far more complicated question of the visas. I presume, that that also arises and that this money is required for the payment of those individuals who look after the visas as well as those who look after the passports. If so, I think I shall have the great majority of Members with me who have to do a good deal of travelling on the Continent when I say that the appalling waste of time in going from one country to another which is requisite in order to obtain visas, is a thing that only those who travel can really appreciate. Last year there was an Inter-Parliamentary Conference at Lisbon, at which 13 nations were represented. Some 14 or 15 Members of this House were present at that Conference, and the only British paper which was put forward was one which dealt with the simplification of frontier formalities. That was passed unanimously by the whole of the representatives of those 13 nations, and we were requested to report to our Governments and to do all that lay in our Power to bring back the state of Europe, from the point of view of travel, to what it was in pre-War days.
It has fallen to my lot to visit every nation in Europe, with the exception of the three Baltic Republics, since the Armistice, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the difficulties in travelling from one country to another, particularly
in Central Europe and in the Near East, at the present moment are perfectly terrible. Hours and days are wasted by Britishers and others who have to make their way from one country to another. At the same time, let me endorse what the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has said, that in every one of those capitals and cities in which one has had to come in contact with the British representatives, nothing more courteous could possibly have been found, and I am only too glad to have this opportunity of adding my humble tribute to what has been said before in that regard. I would suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, however, that if he will merely travel through Europe as plain Mr. Smith or something of that kind, without any help from the Foreign Office, he will agree with me that it is up to every Member of this House to do all he can at the present time to try and push forward a simplification of the troubles incidental to travelling under the system of visas.

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: I do not object to passports as such. I think they might be made a great deal more useful than they are, but I think it is a pity that they only last for so short a time. Nor do I see any reason why such a time limit should be put upon them. A passport in fact at the present moment is a verified photograph of an individual, stating authoritatively who he is, and a passport should last as long as the photograph is likely to continue to resemble the person whom it professes to portray. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has referred to that very much more questionable institution the visa, and I wish to support and emphasise everything he has said on that matter. The complaint is not against our own Foreign Office, nor our own representatives in foreign countries. Those of us who have had occasion to travel will universally acclaim the politeness and the friendly help which they have met from our representatives in every part of the world, but when we come to deal, especially with the minor officials of other countries, we do not always meet either with the same courtesy or with the same willingness to help, and I think if our Foreign Office could bring a little more pressure to bear upon some other countries, they might improve the method in which the visas are procured,
and save the travelling British public what is really, when it is added up all over the world, an enormous expense, and that is the tremendous waste of time in which it involves travellers, many of them travelling on important duties. The object of the whole system is said to be to keep out undesirables. I have a good deal of sympathy with what my hon. Friend opposite has said. I think you can carry that considerably too far. At the same time, the most impossible incomers are those who creep through the meshes of any kind of passport or visa net you may impose in their way. Honest citizens are met with every kind of difficulty, but your revolutionary of the lowest order has very little difficulty indeed in dodging all the impediments put in his way, and I should think it was far preferable to let in an occasional undesirable in order to save the time, worry, nerve, temper and efficiency of the vast mass of our own people travelling abroad.

Captain BENN: I think the Committee is under a slight misapprehension, or I am. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that no new money was being asked by this Supplementary Vote. Is that so? It is rather an important point, because it involves £26,000.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: It is purely a matter of accountancy. The Passport Office costs £75,000 a year. It is now making a profit of something like £50,000 this year, but there was an over-estimate. It was supposed that the Appropriation-in-Aid would come to £126,000 for this year. That is not in the way of being realised, and, therefore, it is necessary to adjust the accounts by asking the House for this money.

Captain BENN: This is a Supplementary Estimate which is going to authorise the Treasury to pay out of the Consolidated Fund £26,000. The Consolidated Fund is only refreshed from the taxes, and, therefore, this is a Vote to take from the taxes £26,000 in order to make up the necessary profit in the Passport Office. The fact of the matter is that this Estimate is for authority to pay from the Consolidated Fund, or the taxpayers of the country, £26,000 on behalf of a system which I had hoped would not have been defended in quite such a strenuous way by the hon. Gen-
tleman. There may have been a necessity for it at the Armistice—I cannot say—but surely the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to carry this system of passports to perpetuity? They are an inconvenience to everyone who travels, though the people who travel for pleasure are not the most important, but those who travel for business. The hon. Gentleman ought to invite the opinion of the business men who have to make a tour on the Continent for business, and who have to go through the interminable delays produced by the production of photographs, the granting of visas, and the like. I am speaking from my own experience. The hon. Gentleman either does or does not defend the system. If the first, I say he is wrong; if the second, then he should say so.

Mr. JESSON: I should not have risen had it not been for the extraordinary statements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), who claims to speak for the Labour party. It only shows what extraordinary things one meets nowadays in the Labour movement.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is it in order to allude to hon. Members of this House as "things," or is it only hon. Members who invent these elegant terms?

Mr. JESSON: My point is this: The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a complaint on behalf of the Labour party. I want to inform him that quite recently I was associated with a certain trade union which is affiliated with the Labour party, and we were protesting against the introduction of aliens to take work from the British workers—taking these workers' jobs and so making them draw unemployment pay. My contention is—whether I am quite agreeable that we should make this as simple as possible for the men who come here for business purposes—obviously if you are to have unemployment pay you have to retard the number of people who come here and take jobs, if they are going to do your own people out of their work. This particular trade union with which I am associated were protesting against a certain number of people coming here and taking the jobs which, in the ordinary course of affairs, would have gone to Englishmen, and so throwing the latter on the taxes.

Sir J. D. REES: Whatever may be the inconveniences attaching to the passport system—and they are very great—the system, at any rate, is a useful corrective to the prevailing disease of internationalism—which is the ruin of nationalism and destructive to the nations. If the passport system, in addition to making possible the very considerable inconvenience it imposes on our nationals when travelling, can make it equally difficult for undesirables to come to this country, we ought to welcome it with all our hearts. What is so bad about the system is that it does not seek to prevent the scum of the Continent very freely immigrating into this country and taking the bread out of the mouths of our own people. But while it does not produce that desirable effect, it does certainly annoy and inconvenience our own nationals when they are travelling abroad. At the same time, one ought to be fair to foreign officials. On the whole, I think they are pretty courteous and considerate, and we must not forget that British subjects do not always appear to foreign officials the mild and democratic creatures we appear to be in this House and know ourselves at heart to be. It is not really the case that the travelling Englishman always produces the impression of being a downtrodden worm, although he asserts that very freely when any question like this arises in the House of Commons. If any simplification of the passport system is going to make it any easier than it is now for undesirables to come here and settle among us and skim the cream off the milk, if there is any to be got, I would vote myself against any simplification of these intensely provoking regulations. I do not know how my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leith (Captain W. Benn) discovered the taxpayer suffered very much from this system. I believe it is one of the very few things he does not suffer from. But if the taxpayer here suffers, the body of officials elsewhere profits. It is the means of livelihood to an enormous number of officials all over the Continent, and it may be that somewhere in this country there are a few officials who are reaping their reward.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Two hundred and eight.

Sir J. D. REES: I am not standing up for them, but the matter has to be looked
at all round, and I am bound to say that before the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs accepts this as merely a question of inconvenience to the travelling public—I am sure that counts very much with me, having spent much of my life travelling—he must also consider the way in which foreigners come here under the guise of paupers, bringing with them gold to debauch the loyalty of our subjects, preaching the abominable doctrine of internationalism, by which we do nothing but lose, by which no British subject has ever profited in any way. I hope my hon. Friend will take that into account, and will stick to his guns, if necessary.

Sir. C. WARNER: I am thoroughly in sympathy with everybody who wants to make travelling easier and reduce the system of visas, but I think the three economists opposite, the hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), and the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) have all fallen into serious error. They all want to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. I understood them to object to spending £26,000. What happens if we follow their advice? Instead of having to vote £26,000, there would be £126,000 to vote, because the passports have already provided us with a revenue of £100,000. What has happened is we have not realised quite so good a business as we might have done.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: It appears to me that this Vote is, after all, only a rectification of accounts. The Foreign Office promised the Consolidated Fund that it would give it £50,000 profit, instead of which it has only been able to give it £24,000; consequently it comes down to the House and says you must ask the Consolidated Fund to pay us back £26,000. It is nothing but a rectification of the account. Whatever the merits of the passport system may be, we must deal with this as an accounting question, and we shall only be exposing ourselves to ridicule if we oppose this readjustment of the account.

Mr. ACLAND: There have been so many theories put forward in regard to this Estimate that I hesitate to think I have found the real solution. Still there are some figures not yet referred to which
I think are pertinent. Parliament was asked originally this year by the Foreign Office for a net sum of £212,000 for its services. It now finds it wants £238,000 for Foreign Office services. If that is not an extra charge on the taxpayer I do not know what it is. It is of course that. After all, the total charges to be provided by the taxpayer are made up of the revised Estimates for the different Departments, and these are added together, with the result that the Foreign Office finds it, cannot make both ends meet without getting £26,000 more. Quite rightly they now come and ask for the extra money. This arises incidentally, whereas at the beginning of the year they anticipated that every pound spent on the passport system would produce £2, they now find it only produces 30s. in fees, so that, instead of getting £50,000, they are only receiving £25,000 profit, and we are coming within a measurable distance of not getting even that, as—and it is, we are told, the same in the case of the Post Office—high fees are producing a diminution of business and the thing may become not worth the candle. It seems worth while considering whether it is desirable to keep on £75,000 worth of officials with a view to getting a doubtful quantity of revenue. I recognise that the question of visas does not really come into this Estimate. I do not raise it particularly because I believe the Foreign Office has tried by international arrangement to simplify the very complicated and burdensome system which hitherto has prevailed. I believe they have arranged that it shall be possible to go now to Switzerland with one visa instead of the two that were necessary only a short time ago. I feel sure that the Under-Secretary will continue to do everything he can to facilitate that system, even if a certain part of the visa or passport system happens to pay us a few thousand pounds a year. As soon as other nations begin to use the argument that, because we plague their subjects, they are justified in plaguing ours in return, the game will not be worth the candle, and we should do very much better if we abolished the officials and the visa system, even if it can be so administered as to bring in a little more than it costs. I think the Under-Secretary realises that, and that he is working to reduce the appalling vexations which still exist all over the Continent in the
visa system, and therefore I will not further enlarge upon it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think I can bring forward one argument which will induce some hon. Members to support me. The number of officials employed on this admittedly redundant system is very large, and it is going up. Last year it was 271—

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that we should get this Vote as soon as possible, may I point out that the authorised staff of the Passport Office is 276, but that in point of fact only 214 are, employed, and every care is taken by the head of the Department to adjust the staff to the volume of the work done. The staff at the present time is not equal, or anything like equal, to the authorisation.

Mr. MILLS: I would not have intervened in this Debate but for the senseless interpretation which has been placed upon the remarks of the speakers representing the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Yes, the senseless remark of the hon. Member who spoke of paupers coming into Britain with bags of gold, which is a paradox so far as I am concerned. The hon. Member spoke as though the whole Continent was one seething mass of humanity, all imbued with the one idea of revolution. I want to say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"]—I will sit down in a moment if I am not interrupted. I have stood for seven hours in the Italian consulate in Vienna, where the sole measure of success was the ability to bribe, and from one end of Europe to the other the poorest of the population can come and go day after day, for weeks, without redress. That cannot be said of the British consulates, and I hope that, in view of the vehement protests that have come from every quarter, the Foreign Office will lead the way to an improvement in this direction.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £25,000, be granted for the said Service," put, and negatived.

FISHERY BOARD, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,945, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the
31st day of March, 1922, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Grants-in-Aid of Piers or Quays.

It being Four of the Clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next (27th February).

CIVIL SERVICE (EMPLOYMENT OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS).

Ordered, "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the employment in the Civil Service of men who, in the exercise of the right granted to them by the Military Service Acts, were granted exemption from combatant service on conscientious grounds; and to report what action, if any, is desirable in respect of these men."

Ordered, "That the Committee do consist of Thirteen Members."

Committee accordingly nominated of Mr. Bowerman, Captain Bowyer, Major Breese, Major Entwistle, Lieut.-Colonel Hurst, Commander Locker - Lampson, Major Morrison-Bell, Mr. Gideon Murray. Lieut. - Colonel Nall, Lieut. - Colonel Stephenson, Mr. J. H. Thomas, Colonel Wedgwood, and Major Mackenzie Wood.

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That five be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Ordered, "That the Lords Message [15th February] relating to the appointment of a Committee on Indian Affairs be now considered."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered, "That a Select Committee of Eleven Members be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords as a Standing Joint Committee on Indian Affairs."

Mr. Acland, Sir Thomas Bennett, Sir Henry Craik, Major Glyn, Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, Mr. Reginald Nicholson, Sir J. D. Rees, Mr.
Spoor, Sir Charles Townshend, and Colonel Wedgwood nominated Members of the Select Committee.

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Ordered, "That Five be the quorum."—[Colonel Gibbs.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No, 3.

Adjourned at Three minutes after Four o'Clock till Monday next (27th February).